Leaderboard

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.

The a7 V is quite a predictable upgrade, nevertheless it's excellent. It does however miss a lot of video features that are present on the Panasonic S1 II / S1R II for a similar price, and the cheaper Nikon Zr / Z6 III... No open gate, no anamorphic, 4K is still maximum resolution, no real-time LUT can be baked into footage, and of course Sony still has no internal RAW codec to call their own. Still, this is a $3000 entry level camera so we can't be too greedy can we? Compared to... Sony a7 IV. The previous a7 IV is now even more of a bargain, it will probably go down even further in price used, most likely to region of $1200. Stills quality the same as a7 V and probably more than most people will ever need. Video quality is excellent but the rolling shutter is on high-side, that's one area as well as the Super 35mm 4K/120p where a7 V has an advantage. Sony a9 III. Well, keep an eye on that used price as it's already not a million miles off what a new a7 V costs... Sony a1. Again, the more powerful option vs a7 V albeit with a few of the new features missing, you can pick one up used in the UK for £2700, same price as a new a7 V. Nikon Zr. THE choice if you want fake raw. Nikon Z6 III. Much more price competitive than the new Sony. Panasonic S1R II. The dark horse. It does more. Price is high though and I much prefer the Sony body design and build quality. Panasonic S1 II. Certainly has the edge on the a7 V for video, if not autofocus. More expensive, but again keep an eye on the used market prices. Overall I think the a7 V is predictable - it's good that we have another partially stacked sensor option though.

I don't know what people see in new cameras really. Used ones just so much more exciting. A GFX 100 for £1800. You don't need to buy a single medium format lens for it... Bang on a 10 quid adapter and Minolta 50mm F1.4 for 50 quid and it looks like a Leica M11 with Noctilux F0,95. A7 IV for £1300... What a bargain that is. Does everything. If you need the exotic frame rates and codecs... EOS R5, 4K/120p, 8K raw, £1700. Sony a1... You can go to Japan and the flight pays for itself. The list goes on. I will never buy a new camera or pre-order one again.

First time I see the reference to Fake RAw!!! Since when does the ZR has fake raw, in fact it is as RAW as it can be with zero noise reduction etc. I know the ZR does have its quirks, as lacking some good exposure tool for now in software and micro hdmi in hardware. But the RAW and image quality is their.

I also find this quite baffling, this camera in a FX2 body would have been a great move! I don't get it!

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...

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!!!

I've been rocking 2 secondhand S5s all this year, mainly with my Super Takumars (I've got the 20-60 kit for when I'm feeling lazy) and I've yet to touch the edges of their capabilities.

The thing is, open gate is a pretty big deal for people in charge of social media for companies big and small. Almost everyone i know doing that kind of work is a Sony shooter and are frustrated that they don't have that option, while my S5II X does. I know of at least three folks who switched to Lumix for open gate, though that's a drop in the bucket. Still, as other companies introduce it, Sony might find themselves shedding customers if they too don't introduce it soon.

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/

My guess is they have a lot of those sensors they need to offload and this is one way of doing it.

Somehow strange that they did not put this technology in the FX2. I assume the development on the photo side is stronger. For the videoside it just reduces some of the A74 biggest flaws. The Crop on 60p has cost me some nice shots, i find the rolling shutter not too problematic even though i hate the effct- haven't shot for the big screen though. Will be super interesting to see a comparison of the picture of the A74 to the A75 -again skintones is what i am most interested in...

Here's the video if anyone wants to learn about hawks and the local people here to track 'em. Also, you can play guess the camera:

The irony, for the last two decades we have been pursuing feverously the vista vision look. One by one, years passing by we got large sensor, better codec, even raw and just as we got affordable anamorphic lens, it is now cool to film in 4;3 SD tv format. LOL

I dunno real winner for me and surely my next cam purchase is R6 mk3: 7k, RAW, OG, 4K120p no crop. Tried it out and couldn't find any flaws. 7K open gate C-Log2 looks excellent. Recording 7K OG 10-bit H.265 to a normal SD card is super efficient. The S&F mode is surprisingly practical. Being able to set odd frame rates like 46 over 25 directly in camera, in Log, makes it easy to get subtle slow-mo without post tricks. They finally nailed it, third lucks a charm. In comparison, this A7V feels crippled AF. At least they updated the sensor but why no 4K120p no crop, no OG or +4K? Also I'd be mega pissed if I bought an FX2. Sony's strategy is just plain weird, they lost the plot. The four year old A7SIII /FX3 is still leagues better than this for video.

Looks like a fine camera and it's overall a nice improvement over the A7 IV. It is a little weird to see it being released right on the heels of the FX2 which still uses the older sensor. That said, even though 4K is plenty, it is weird to see a major vendor releasing a new model that tops out at full frame 4KP60 and cropped 4KP120. For a mostly video shooter, the A7S III is about the same price used as this one is new. It has pretty similar dynamic range performance and the RS is like 9ms vs 14ms here. If I remember right, the older camera also doesn't need to crop in to get to 120fps. Or get a used ZV-E1 with most of the performance of the A7S III for 2/3 the price of the A7 V. For a hybrid shooter, it makes more sense - but approaching the new camera from a purely video perspective, it's really a "meh." It's not a terrible choice and people are going to shoot decent stuff with it, but it's sort of hard to imagine existing Sony shooters swapping up to it and even harder to imagine people who are invested in other systems changing to it.

Is the 16 stops in the room with us right now?

Train Dreams on Netflix I don't know how many of you have already seen it, but I still wanted to recommend a film that I watched a few nights ago on Netflix that hit me right in the heart. It was presented at the last Sundance Film Festival but then went directly to Netflix without going through movie theaters. And it's a real shame because the cinematography is stunning. Shot in 3:2 in the Idaho forests with an almost documentarian feel. The story is infinitely sad and very slow. The reviews are almost all enthusiastic, and it has become one of the most viewed films on the platform in recent weeks. The negative reviews accuse it of being truly slow, but in my opinion and that of others, the beauty lies precisely in the film's slowness. If you manage to get into the mood, it hits you right in the heart. I don't want to spoil too much about the story, but the ending truly moved me. The DoP says that the film was shot almost entirely using natural light (à la Lubezky), and many scenes are set at dawn, sunset, and nighttime using real candlelight. The chiaroscuro is a delight for the eyes. https://filmmakermagazine.com/129137-interview-cinematographer-adolpho-veloso-train-dreams-sundance-2025/

Same. On this particular project I found myself reaching for it more than the GH5. Not for the bird shots as that really required good slow-mo, but for the people shots? Looked awesome. It pancakes the highlights though; just loses details that LUMIX cameras hold onto. Other than that, pretty great for a $300 camera.

Oh god. That thing. When online people complain about lousy footage with the cliche "was that shot on a potato"? They're probably talking about the D90's codec.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🤦‍♂️

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'd be truly shocked if the main sources on all of the ____rumors sites weren't the marketing teams for the various camera manufacturers. These days, those sites function as a pretty major portion of their pre-release marketing as well as allowing them to do sentiment/market analysis based on how people react to the rumors when posted.

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.

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

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…

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 gatekeeper is talent.

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.:)

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.