Leaderboard

One of the best channels on YouTube in this industry. Thorough, no hype and do actually make quality productions out in the field and not simply spout BS from behind a desk, holding a lav mic wearing clothing back to front.

Suddenly Gerald finds no problem in DR and 10 stops is good enough to declare "cameras peaked".

GH5 GH4 EM10iii OM-1 5Dii XPRO2 XT-5 P1100 DSC-RX10 iPhone15 iPhone12 Xiaomi12 Ultra DJI Mavic Pro GoPro Hero All those different cameras were used to make our latest indy documentary on-and-off over the last 3 years. We finally finished post-production (for real this time) last month. Not to mention all the different ridiculous vintage lenses and modern lenses employed along the way. So that happened. My advice? Yeah, don't use so many cameras...and then try to make all that cohere somehow with no legitimate color grading skills... Surprisingly, I found the EM10iii footage the most pleasant looking color-wise when exposed correctly.

For comparison its his ZR test At 0.1 High S/N ratio, DR is 6 stops. In his R6III test its only 3. Not only he is not curious at all why its so low, but doesn't even notice the drastic fall of it (from 8.26 to 3.04). As a reviewer I would dig into the data. I seriously feel he's not interested about what he's doing anymore. He's like "AF is good". What? How you tested that? Where is the evidence that its good? Canon website says its good, what else you know? And good for who? and why people should pay near $3k to have "good AF" when their current camera already has good AF? I assume R6III AF is "better" than R6II, but I need to see the evidence in practical situations. That's the job of someone who reviews gears for living.

I saw one part when he was saying that it was a little annoying that they did not get exact time remaining for recording. The same guy said that it was totally unacceptable a cine camera did not give exact time remaining on the card. OK, it is written cine, but it is still a 2200 USD camera, and h265 by its nature is variable bit rate. Simple example on a sitting interview with a static background and the bitrate goes a lot lower, while have dynamic shot with lots of movement or movement in the shots and the bitrate goes up drastically. The just couldn't find any thing to say positive at the camera except about Nikon color and his luts, that he sell!!!

And a lot of small improvements too

Media Division did a deep dive. Big improvements for sure. They were able to trigger overheating in some pretty extreme scenarios, but it no longer seems to be a likelihood in any reasonable shooting situation.

I'm of a more ramshackle mentality, but even my loosey-goosey philosophies hit a limit. fyi, this particular doc was about people that are trying to help conserve raptor migration through SoCal. So, lots of bird shots. Which we don't really do, nor have done. The whole thing became kind of a production experiment. We were only answering to ourselves so we could take risks like that. The scope of the project kept changing, but the finances never did. There was very little money in our pockets, and what we did have we needed to save for travel. And being a seriously-non-affluent-filmmaker, it basically came down to a make-do-as-we-can process. Our personal finances, as well as the various situations of the shoot, were all over the place. We were borrowing/renting lenses and gear in a very haphazard way. Sometimes it worked. Mostly it did not. Meanwhile, the stuff we had in our own collection was inferior. For instance we used a POS Vintage Photax 500mm w/2x extender for an entire season to get a lot of the BIF shots. That was an insanely unfortunate thing to do, but it's what we could afford to have on hand. The biggest bitch was not having a real tripod. We truly wished we had friends/colleagues that could have let us use a pro Sacthler or Miller. More than willing to carry some sort of hefty rig into the wild if it would've allowed smooth shots when filming at a +2000mm FF equiv. That FOV reach is f'in hard to control. As a side note, it was pretty wild running around with birders carrying equipment that was so expensive and professional while us "filmmakers" were often using, basically, consumer toys to grab video. At the end of the day, the images are passable by a certain standard, but when you pixel peep you can tell it's all held together with spit, bubblegum, hopes, and prayers. "f8 and be there" was the mantra we had to talk ourselves into and accept. "The best camera is the one you got." ...That sort of thing.

🤷‍♂️ but as with the OG S1R and it’s 47mp sensor (Tower Jazz was the speculation at the time?), that was unique to the brand, the 44mp S1RII sensor is Panasonic’s own apparently and totally unique as far as I am aware? IMO, it has that mojo that the S1R had in that there is something unquantifiably special about it. I think most reviews/reviewers go mainly off the spec sheet and very very few have proper Panasonic full-frame history/experience but those that actually go and shoot the thing properly, know. I’ve shot 8 weddings spread over 24 days, stills and video with it now and can see immediately when I drop the files on a timeline, how much better they are than those of the S5II/S9. And this is no “because I have one” fanboy hallucination, because I have near zero brand loyalty and if I think something else will do a better job, I owe no company or brand anything. Plus have no YouTube channel, have ever received a free piece of kit or anything, so simply user feedback opinion. Define ‘better’. It’s one of those things that is not any single thing but the sum of several smaller things… As above somewhere or perhaps the other Lumix thread, ‘less muddy’, not that the material coming out of the S5II/S9 is muddy, but using words, it’s the best I can do. I’d throw up some sample footage myself for download except I only shoot log with the baked in Phantom conversion LUT for workflow purposes but the comparison with S5II/S9 is the same because that is what I have done with those cameras since I had them. The pricing was a bit too high straight out of the gate, but I picked mine up for £2700 which was acceptable compared with any kind of brand swap which I looked at which would have been anything from 5-10k based on my needs. So did I remain ‘brand loyal’ purely on cost then? Nope; cost + familiarity/continuity + capability, but starting afresh today, I’d go Nikon with adapter E Mount glass.

And when he also did a test of standard Vlog vs Arri log, the standard Vlog looked a lot better to me. Someone else and I forget who now (but it was someone UK) also did a side by side between the S1II and S1RII and all though he made a case that the S1II was better, about 90% of the comments including myself, disagreed. I was playing with building a new custom non-log profile based on a download from LUMIX Lab, but heavy rain has stopped play 😒 Agree as it stays on and there is less risk of touching the glass and getting fingerprints on it or having to put it somewhere safe every time. I also had mine flip down rather than up as it looked less crap. I might go back to it now I back to primarily shooting one video designated unit as I could make a VND work better with that, but as above, was working on a non-log profile with an ISO of just 80 which in most scenarios, would remove any need for ND. But ground to a halt thanks to the crap UK weather...

The screen is the gateway drug. I am much weaker than @BTM_Pix and after handling one briefly for 15 minutes ordered it 3 days later. It's coming tomorrow. I'm not bothered by the "lackluster" DR results or anything. I also bought it in hopes the firmware updates will add even more value, which is a big no-no but I heard ProRes LT is confirmed coming.

Because I will do literally anything to avoid eBay, I am willing to let some of my favourite gear go for knock down prices. I have a mint GH5S which wants to find a good home 🙂 I also have a Nikon Zf if anyone is interested in some full frame Fuji-style shooting. This is loaded with my pre-release Fuji film styles for the Nikon Z mirrorless cameras. £500 should do it for the GH5S and the Nikon Zf price is negotiable. The stuff is in the UK - collect over coffee in the Peak District or Manchester. Or post within the UK or Europe. I'll be going back to Berlin soon. I also have a couple of compacts which wish to depart the crowded EOSHD HQ and go on a shoot. Canon G12 (CDD) and a Sony RX100 VA. Prices of those can be discussed below if you're interested!

And while it's not nearly as ridiculous as the EOS R5's overheating problems that were almost entirely caused by the Canon 🔨, when you bring out an S1R on any number of shoots for a long time, someone's bound to start going on about how it overheats. I still get that when I bring out my R5 for slider shots/suction cupping to windshields/etc. "Aren't you worried that's gonna overheat? I heard that camera overheats a lot." "They corrected most of that a while ago and I'm pretty sure it'll make it through this 45 second take, regardless."

New firmware dropped today, apparently S2 cameras no longer catch fire and several 8k open gate tests have been shown to outlast battery life. No mention of the latter being improved and maybe they sneaked something in there in that regard as it’s less than I am used to and my only real criticism of the camera. New Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 landed for me personally also. So far, so good. Internal zoom, hurrah. Not big nor heavy, hurrah. Bright f1.8 constant aperture, hurrah. Hybrid zoom works with 4k 50p and there is a 422 all-intra mode, albeit at 800mbps, another lower one at 600mbps and a long gop 420 at just 200mbps and most likely going with that with the new Cinelike A2 profile that is not as flat as the D2 or as punchy as the V2. With the hybrid zoom enabled plus the standard level (ie there is a higher level with more punch in) EIS engaged, gives a good FF equivalent range of 28-66mm which is perfect for my needs. I think we’re going to get along beautifully and should do exactly what I needed which was to reduce kit (bodies, lenses, lens swaps etc) down to a more compact level. The proof of course will be out in the field but it’s a mild evolution than any kind of revolution after 5 years now with LUMIX, so not expecting any surprises…

The gatekeeper is talent.

I had only original S5 before the S5II, but the various 8k and 4k H.264 4:2:2, H.265 4:2:0 and Proress samples from S1RII looked clearly not that over-sharpened during the short period I played with them in Resolve. They were much closer to S5, colors were kind of richer, and in low light shots it looked cleaner and good. I was seriously tempted to switch back, but did not want to get rid of my new Nikon lenses. I was also put off by the various crop modes and over heating. Now, with Z6III, ZR and 4 Nikon lenses it would need S2H with good EVF, 4” screen and H.265 IQ comparable to R3D NE for me to switch back. Proress Raw HQ file sizes are even bigger than what R3D NE has, and raw controls worse in Resolve, so that is not an option for me.

Photo and video. So many so-called reviews are really just biased opinion pieces that are all about getting views, sponsorship and ad money, rather than authentic unbiased guides, but that is just how it is. I think anything around that pixel count will deliver similar results whether it be Nikon, Canon, Sony or Lumix and never tried a 100mp medium format Fuji or Hassie and it would be quite interesting to shoot one or the other back to back. On-line, unless told or pixel peeped to a high magnitude, I doubt anyone could tell and for me personally, there is a sweet spot of professional pride in my craft as it were and for stills that is FF and for video FF or APSC and possibly even 4/3…

Looks fantastic. Any interviews with the cinematographer / crew out there? They used Panasonic GH7 + Lumix 12mm F1.4 for most part https://www.eoshd.com/news/in-ny-and-la-theatres-january-major-new-movie-magellan-is-shot-on-the-panasonic-gh7/

That is the sum of it. Enthusiast weighing up A vs B vs C vs what they already have, yes, even 500 is a BIG difference. Business user however, turning over 50k+ PA, it's still 500, but 1% of gross turnover and 50k is a very small business. And that is based on 1 year so if you can use something for 3+ years on say a 100k turnover, it's a difference of near zero consequence. 3k camera on 3 years at 100k = 1%. The difference being if it's a tool that makes you money and if that tool can also save you time, or improve your output in some way such as maybe it's more flexible such as open gate, or any other factor that works for you, then it becomes an asset. A depreciating asset (as all this stuff is), but the cost is not that big a consideration. Maybe but maybe not because it would need to have 'more' really (as you suggested), so it would have been wrong to badge it IMO as an S2H, even though, based on current evidence at least, it may very well be the replacement for the S1H that we have got. I always thought they would go a 2 model route and said so on this forum, but I thought they were going to make the S1RII (should have been badged S2R) and an S2H, the S2R with the Leica SL3/Sony A7RV sensor and then the more video-centric S2H. Instead we got what we got and for me, the pick of them is the S2R S1RII, and though it's a good body, would rather have seen something more innovative such as the ZR style body with 4" screen but articulating like that of the S2R S1RII. If...and it's a massive if, they do come out with a replacement for the S1H, I think if they go for this body style with that kind of rear screen, it would be a monster hit for Lumix.

I'm talking about in cinema, there's no use case for it. Sports yes.

I think it CAN be the most important choice for SOME films, but for MOST films, I genuinely think it matters less now than ever before. I'm not going to say that the ARRI Alexis 35 doesn't have a place and that everything can just be shot on a GH7 or FX3, because that's not true at all either. But how many of them could have been shot on something else and not been any worse for the wear? One of my favorite films of the year is "The Long Walk." It's shot on the ARRI Alexa 35 with Panavision anamorphics (just like the much uglier "Terrifier 3" I mentioned in a previous post!) and looks very good. But if you had switched that ARRI Alexa out for something else, I don't think it'd have had any impact on the film because the acting and story was that good and was what stood out the most about the film. That's not a reason to NOT to film with an ARRI, but it's an example of how less important it is today than ever before. "28 Years Later" is one of the highest grossing films of the year and was shot on an iPhone. Can anyone honestly say that it would've been more successful, financially or artistically, if it'd been shot on an ARRI? Probably not. Conversely, you can't really say that "The Conjuring: Last Rites" would have been less successful if it had been shot on something other than an ARRI, say a PYXIS or lower end Sony.

Something else I forgot to say was the difference between the S5II/S9 video and the S1RII is how clean/nicer the latter is. Working with all 3 on the same timeline, especially with lower light stuff, it’s very clear which is which because the S5II/S9 footage whilst not muddy, seems muddy when compared with that coming from the S1RII. This is partly why I have moved the S9 into a very limited secondary role where along with the S5II, they will be responsible for pretty much just 3 scenarios resulting in 3 pieces of footage, albeit in the case of the S5II, that means full length wedding ceremony and full length speeches. Anyone using these cameras together will probably confirm the same difference.

That ability to flip between stills and video is great…as long as you either: A. Don’t mind using an ND for stills. Personally I do mind. B. Or don’t mind cranking the shutter for video. Personally I don’t mind and last 3 weddings I shot with zero ND and did not notice any difference to the quality of the video other than the image quality was better than the previous 3 jobs shot with a VND. C. Or use a flip up or magnetic filter and I have tried both and didn’t care for either. I think one of the beauties of shooting video with the S1RII is base 200 ISO in log (and 160 with ARRI log C but personally think Vlog looks better most of the time bit could make a better base if also baking in a LUT) meaning less requirement for using ND anyway. I have however decided to go back to having separate bodies for stills and video because it just works better for me, with less kit, more range, near zero lens swaps. On that basis, I currently have one of my S1RII’s dedicated to stills with the 28-70 with hybrid zoom (28-105 and still achieving 18mp stills at the long end) enabled for outdoor use, with the 35mm f1.8 as my low-light indoor option. The second S1RII I bought used came with the Arri Log preinstalled and I have this one paired with the 17-40 crop lens (and with EIS enabled it’s giving me a FF equivalent range of approx 28-66) as my dedicated run & gun video unit, with 18mm f1.8 as my wide angle FF option, especially for indoor low light, tighter scenarios. S9 has had a stay of execution and I have welded the 85mm f1.8 to it and mounted it on a lightweight tripod as my sniper video unit, plus is serves as a back up to any or all of my 3 main cams. The 3rd main cam being the same S5II workhorse with the 70-200 f4 on heavy tripod for all my static and long form capture stuff. I also have the 50mm f1.8 in reserve for it for tighter, lower light, indoor scenarios, so all bases as covered as they can be. But going back to the video/stills settings, being able to have I think 9 dedicated stills settings and 9 video at the turn of a single dial is fantastic. I only have 4 settings set up and these are; outdoor landscape, outdoor people, indoor lower light and indoor/outdoor extreme low light as in after dark, each with appropriate ISO ranges and WB etc. It’s crazy really how good this kit now is and the S1RII might not be my favourite camera of all time, but it is easily the most capable and zero complaints other than yes, I would have preferred the more rangefinderesque body style (and hope Panny makes one or at least a Leica Q3 43 rival) and average at best battery life. And obviously, the 4” screen a la ZR would be very welcome, but I’d personally want it with the S1RII style mech and not flipped out to the side. I’d prefer just tilt even to flip out to the side! Best video quality I have had out of a camera and it’s pretty robust with equal image quality to the best I have ever had which was Sony A7RV. As a pure stills camera, I think the A7RV does still have the edge being honest, but it’s a narrow margin and as a hybrid, the LUMIX comfortably tops it. Not updated the firmware yet but that was very welcome. I hope your shoot goes as well tomorrow.

And your prediction is correct! A huge difference in responsiveness in general and so much easier to use when switching between video and photo. I felt it worked a lot better with my Godox flash as well (I’m still pretty new to flash). I feel I have way more “keepers”. The screen and evf are great. I had it on for 5 hours pretty much non stop with no problem although it was probably only about 20 degrees in the venue. Tomorrow I have another similar event (video and photo) and on Saturday anther event with photos only. I think they are going to be a lot easier to manage than they would have been with the S5ii. I would probably have had 2 S5iis, 1for doing photo and 1 for video. Now I can do the same with one camera!

Pretty sure pre-recording does not cover a minute or two longer periods and it probably needs someone to press the shutter or record button before action starts. Nikon has this auto capture, that would be a better solution if it works reliably and starts when subject enters the frame as configured in the settings and stops too. Still, in certain sports you need to start the camera well before execution, and not worry what it is doing, if you want to be able to perform.

Or you have pre-recording 😙

Wow, I'm part of a bunch of Sony communities, and I've never seen any complaints about this kind of issue. Especially SAR, where they nitpick every single last possible (and impossible) thing.

You won’t be buying tickets to my new feature, ‘Escargot!’ then will you?! It’s a 5 hour documentary about the life of garden snails in rural France and with every ticket sold you, you get a free lettuce.

I have never understood why someone would shoot a 30 minute continuous take at 120fps. It's absolutely fucking bonkers. 120fps is for slow mo. If you slowed-down an hour long continuous take from 120fps to the cinema standard of 24p, it would last for 5 hours. Who the fuck is sitting through that?

I'd argue it is the MOST important because without the camera, you don't have a picture. It is the small differences between the latest sensors and codecs that's the unimportant thing. In cinematography, our job isn't to worry about the costumes or set pieces, that's the job of someone else. So lighting and camera are the most important for a DP. What has happened is the gap between the top-end i.e. ARRI and the cheap stuff has closed up. This has been going on ever since the start of the DSLR revolution so it's not a new thing but there's never been a smaller gap that exists now, for example between something like the Alexa 35 and a $1000 used Panasonic S1H. By the way although Magellan has beautiful content and really nice camera-work, the sharpness of it and the deep DOF isn't everybody's cup of tea. It does look a bit too soap opera in parts of that trailer, I think. It looks very different to an IMAX shot film. So there's big differences between formats and lenses still... The same cinema focal length for example on 16mm has always looked vastly different to same on IMAX or large format. Also there are big differences in grading style, camera movement style, and so on. I think most relevant for us is that you don't need to make a massive rig any more to get good results. It's horrible having the weight as a one-man DP. Probably why they used such a small camera on this.

Now that many of the overheating problems are fixed, I can't wait to see all the videos saying Panasonic has fixed the issues. Oh wait, that might not attract the views.

Yes, long story short. the right tool for the job. I am a wildlife enthusiast and despite being an amateur, I find myself facing "on a small scale" the challenges I see in blue-chip productions, and there I realize how truly fundamental the equipment is in these situations. A true watershed between getting the shot and not getting it. For a project on the marine fauna of the sand, I spent hours filming various types of mollusks burying themselves. I have a rebreather and therefore no time limit underwater. But the camera in an underwater housing does not have a V-mount battery (unless you have a RED with a 30K euro housing) and therefore you have battery limits. A clam took an hour and a half before burying itself, and I had to film the initial moment. It took me 3 hours and two dives before succeeding. Dives in which I filmed and every minute I stopped and started again. A couple of times that damn clam buried itself while I was stopping and restarting the recording. The same thing happened while waiting for a crab to eat a fish. I cursed because my GH5M2 does not have the pre-recording function (the GH6 has it and the GH7 does not). I thus discovered that the pre-recording function is one of the most useful functions for those who do wildlife. A practically mandatory choice if you shoot in RAW and fill memory cards in a few minutes.

Hang on, if we have that coffee next week I’m not obliged to buy a camera off you am I? You’re not turning Costa into some sort of camera Herbalife recruitment centre are you?

I'll return to Lubezki's work. Feeling the same vibes. The stuff he does with Cuarón, and overall in general I guess, really nurture the deep dof. Here's a film he shot in my back yard. I can literally see the location from my office -- which I still get a kick out of being able to 'name-drop' As an indy documentarian, I gotta say, I can't really get completely behind this notion, but I do think I know what you're getting at and why useage-context with a camera is important. I just came off a project where the cinematographer was leaving an insane amount of shots and potential in the field. Why? He was trying to wield a bunch of large production shit on an full-fledged ARRI set up rather than just shooting good extensive coverage with a small simple rig. Yes, sometimes what he got looks great. But, trust me, what he missed (and missed often) had better potential. You can chalk some of it to him not being that spry anymore ... which to me would demand you go light and small to mitigate that, but he is definitely a boy-with-his-toys kind of guy rather than a remarkable creative. Wants to have the best most powerful super car, even if he can't drive it, y'know? Anyway, IQ superior? Yes. Practicality? Debatable. Which, coincidentally, practicality is the DP's argument for the GH7 and a 12mm lens on this Magellan movie. I kind of like the 'too-much-grain' treatment, but, yeah, it's a choice. Damn. I'm rambling. Too much wine tonight.

Yup, I'll be using mostly adapted lenses for both cameras. Thinking of picking up the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II for the R8. Already have the 50/1.8 STM and 55-250 STM, which I can't wait to use on the R7 for reach. Thinking about the 17-55/2.8, too, but will probably just go for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 for the best AF performance. Will also be picking up more weather-sealed Meike EF/RF adapters with the swappable VND/UV filters, as I like the one I got for my R50V. Saves a lot of hassle carrying and swapping front-mounted VNDs. And yes, already have a Sabrent 512GB V60 UHS-II card for my R50V, and I'll be picking up more for these cameras. Regardless of positioning, Canon STILL forces the camera to shut off when the card door is opened. 🤦‍♂️

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent. 28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

Well, if you talk about eras, I absolutely agree, but if we consider a single "historical period", the camera doesn't make a difference, except in extreme cases. We have seen many examples over the years. Your works with the mighty GH2, Independent films shot with the GH2. Blind tests where the GH2 was mistaken for a cinema camera. We have the shorts shot by Filippo Chiesa with a GH5S which has a better look than this film with the GH7. We have the blockbuster shot with the FX3. The reality is that in common use cases, the camera doesn't make a difference. The difference is made by the lights, the set, the lenses, and the skill of the DOP. Certainly, with a more limited camera, the DOP is forced to work harder with the other tools. In this forum, everyone is still nostalgic for the 5D MKII with Magic Lantern, which scientific tests have shown does not have more than 9 stops of DR, and yet here, we are declaring the death of a camera over 13 or 14 stops of DR. Run&gun is different of course. Other extreme cases that come to mind are wildlife documentaries where you don't have the possibility to set up cinematic sets (up to a certain point), and therefore the camera and lenses make the difference between having or not having the result. Here, in fact, RED cameras and their crazy mix of resolution and frame rate (and pre-recording) still reign almost supreme. Yet, as the article I posted wrote, action cameras are also used out of necessity simply because it is the only way to film certain situations, and then it is up to the colorist and editor to manage to prevent you from seeing the difference. Returning to the film with the GH7, I personally don't like it at all. The look is banal, heavily color graded, and with heavy grain added in post. But I believe it was a personal taste of the authors and that it was not something done to cover the limitations of the camera. Perhaps more the limitations of the production budget. I repeat, this is a very personal opinion.

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it. The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV. It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam. Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well. So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly. The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much... But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

Complete with 30% discounts like today’s announcements.

How about Black Magic Design to buy them? COMING SOON: Arri Pocket Cinema Camera 24K

Why not Leica as a good fit for Arri ? They can keep it in Germany, use it as a platform to sell more of their cine glass and God knows they can be trusted to keep out the riff-raff from buying them! Interestingly, though, both companies have a relationship with Panasonic so could be good news for the riff raff with a trickle down.

Read this: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/oceanfootagemastery_underwatercinematography-myoctopusteacher-activity-7396815155616989184-C-CD

Thankfully, we're so far beyond the camera being the gatekeeper to accomplishing beautiful cinema. There's no real technical limitation affecting the cinema we see here. I've always been partial to portrait focal lengths because of what they take away from an image, but it's great to see more creative cinematographers shooting wide. Lubezki pretty much hangs out there most of the time.

Thank you for sharing, Andrew. This is looking great. I will watch it as soon as they show it in the cinemas over here. I am still curious to test a GH5 MK II due to it been tested by slashcam for displaying great rendering of texture and offering one of the best 4K images of any dslms out there in that regard. Its optional 1.4 crop mode makes it a great digital 4K S16 cinema camera. GH7 in 4k pixel per pixel mode might be closer to 16mm crop though. I would love a M43 sensor sized lumix pocket cinema camera with flexible cropping, like S16 1:1.66, S16 4:3 with full Super16 width, 2/3" 1:1, you name it. And while you are at it, Panny please give it an internal ND and still keep the EVF and great battery life plus full size Hdmi.:)

My Takumar 50mm F1.4 arrived and I took it out to compare it with the Voigt 42.5mm F0.95 with Sirui 1.25x adapter setup. The Voigt+Sirui is equivalent to 68mm F1.5 and the Takumar+Speedbooster is equivalent to 71mm F2.0, so a bit longer and a bit slower. In order to avoid changing lenses all the time, I did a little lap with the Voigt+Sirui, then did another lap with the Takumar and re-created the compositions from the first lap (as well as grabbing other shots too). These images have had a film-emulation applied, and have had exposures matched, but no other changes, so things like contrast and WB etc should be the same. My impressions: Voigtlander is softer at F0.95 than the Takumar at F1.4 I haven't compared them with the Voigt stopped down, but I'd probably rather get a bit more subject separation than sharper images. The extra sharpness of the Takumar makes the focus peaking a lot easier to use when using the screen (using the EVF you can see what is in focus but the monitor you need peaking on) The focus ring on the Takumar is a lot looser (not that damped but not too loose either), but of course it's backwards The extra width of the Voigt is apparent. It makes me wonder if the Speedbooster is a little less boosting than I claimed. The Sirui has a lot of coma on the edges (stretching light sources horizontally) so the bokeh seems more horizontal than vertical on lights, whereas the Tak seems to have a zoom-blur sort of effect which is a bit odd The Tak has slightly lower contrast (hard to see but I noticed it when trying to match exposures) In addition to those, I also grabbed these with the Takumar: Swirly bokeh! and it's not a Helios!! It has a nice halation/glow but the ghosts from the light sources are real. This is something I am thinking a lot about because I find them to be very distracting. Seems sharp at the edges at closest focus. The bokeh is confusing - sometimes with bubbles and sometimes not. I actually find that the response to light sources in this lens is very complicated - sometimes it stretches along the spokes of a wheel and other times along the rim of the wheel. Also something I noticed but isn't really visible in stills is that light sources pointed straight at the camera have a flare that's like a loop, like this, which can look pretty distracting too. My conclusions are: The focus being lighter and peaking being more obvious makes it a bit easier and faster to use, so much so that I changed my process to where I'd adjust the vND, then hit record and then focus in the 2s it takes the GH7 to begin recording The size and weight difference is significant and I found I was able to shoot people from a lot closer with it than the Sirui The small size and weight mean it's a no-brainer to pack on trips where I'm reluctant to pack the Voig/Sirui combo Next is to test it with an oval insert to get some stretched bokeh. As a proof of concept it certainly looks promising.

For now as a Nikon shooter, I am more inclined to shoot NRAW and do the renaming trick to R3D, than to shoot R3D as I am finding that the Nraw has more DR than the R3D and you can shoot the normal version that takes only about 370 mbs for 24 fps in 4k and 700 mbs for 6k. This is a little test of conversion of Nev to R3D. You have NEV (Nikon RAw), NEV but using the RED lut, Then the Nev to R3D renaming and finally the REDraw file. then So I need to make a little bit more test, with skin tones etc, but they are quite close to me, even more so that even between the different red cameras like the Raptor and Komodo, their is some color difference. The yellow are a little bit more saturated and the image is a little more toward yellow in the Nikon ZR redraw R3D files. On side by side test the ZR was the more yellowish of the red camera. So it might balance out in the end.

I thought I would add my project to this thread as I was somewhat inspired by it. Long story short, I modded my BMPCC to turn it into a D-mount camera.