Emanuel

...gorgeous...

You're welcome, amico mio! : ) Sent you PM, please check your PM box :-)

Simo, have you already tried any one of these tips? https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/24937-gh5-autofocus-improvement-on-new-firmware-update-for-soon/?page=3 https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/24937-gh5-autofocus-improvement-on-new-firmware-update-for-soon/?page=2

Open the thread :-)

^ > up there < Here's the 1st part:

The next 10-bit hybrid... So far, the only one to give you such stuff amongst other goodies in a reasonable package ;-)

One lens, One love, One life... my friend ;-) Great song BTW: Apologies to Bono Vox, but as much as the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 nothing beats the unique when some_ONE pops up... :-P

No other one can beat it... 4/3" format coupled to SB too; covering FF from mid to tele end as well.

I don't think 100,000 can ever be less than 25,000 ; ) so I can't take that as much orthodox or even valuable, I'd dare to say, I'm sorry : ) Extra resolution or 4K for the sake of it will always give you a better cinematic whatever adjective we want to. The point is 75,000 can be not necessary if you only need 25,000 for : P or the extra 75,000 might be more demanding. Reckless argument when even wedding filmmakers or consumers are adopting such standard. Not necessarily mandatory though when by then, you may need to apply something you're not willing to, as for instance, because of a different workflow of your own or sharpness per se to end in acuteness unwanted (you can add blur @post anyhow) and not in your plans or needs into a specific project or sort of work, style/aesthetics and so on. Without mention, from larger you can always go narrower, but not the opposite, so there's nothing 1080p is able to become that 4K acquisition or 4K -> 1080p cannot. This reminds me the peregrine idea that digital can't show grain or mimic film stock when comes acquired in bits and bytes... *cough* *cough* E :-)

Simo, have you seen these?

Indeed. Here's another one -- different results accordingly distinct settings; pulsing seems a way better controlled now too:

Not easier not harder, it is only a matter of resolution : ) You meant sharpness as less cinematic, I guess? Well, I believe in the bigger you can get the little, otherwise, the reverse is much difficult to reach, isn't it?

Under certain circumstances, seems improved...

I guess people are demanding for the wrong settings I'd say... Take a 2nd look on it as said here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lv7adPinHY&lc=z22nw1dqeqfpddynqacdp43a30qlxkbo4ggo3pb4nfhw03c010c "Are you using default settings?? You need to optimize it to be exactly perfect. Dont use the face recognizer.. use the single point on the middle and change the sensitive and speed reaction on it. And then, with the touch screen you can also choose the point to focus." In another note, another (usual) reviewer adds that: "One note I've learned is that autofocus on a subject that is standing still actually works better when the DOF is shallower (wide open aperture) than when the depth of field is deeper, f 3.5 and higher, the camera seems to hunt or pulse more often on a subject that's just standing still. I mention this because off the top of the video you made a comment that shallow depth of field is the hardest for the camera to autofocus with, and I just wanted to throw my experience out there, that shallow depth of field *has helped* autofocus for me, on non moving subjects." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptvfIX40_9s&lc=z23owpsxskigufgluacdp431bqfglq24d0pu2emivmpw03c010c

Easily to avoid it with the right settings though? Or not?

Moiré or aliasing?

Mais Doido Ainda, Still Further... ; ) you mean, Panasonic?

I'm guessing his rolleyes on Glenn's last entry... :-D

Jurek going on diopters: And another anamorphic sample, this one a 2x by another user really beautiful from this unique combos-maker:

Nice to know. WRT that 10-bit stuff, let's check such cloudy puzzle; interesting info FWIW. BTW, sent you a new PM @ your messages box.