Emanuel

Sure, there is. But the rules over YT views have sunk reviewers and, by consequence, reviews of quality IMO.

Yes, I've just read that and something else. I don't contest his honesty. Either his naivety ; ) Well, I recall when I was at film school, I remember one instructor (if not some others) to make fun because of our YT age where the standards shall be tremendously low as internet in general actually is. That is, the democratization of knowledge would bring some oddities as to establish some "authorities" as rookies in disguise. Just some pioneers to have found the "magic formula" on new media supplied by new technologies in a new world. I regret to see their words were pretty accurate indeed. The Warhol's 15 minutes of fame don't inevitably mean quality on the outcome checked. Mediocrity rules over our heads, unfortunately. I don't object their effort, just the quality of the massive support these "reviewers" have on a basis of an uninformed audience of thousands when not millions. They could bring some credibility, oh great, of course. My beef is with the poorly dandy results they offer to my eyes. I don't perforce this reviewer, perhaps the review per se. I speak in general. I'd love to see an Adam Wilt or Barry Green (well known Panasonic shill BTW) only because I know their technical standard is likely much higher and reliable, once they put their name in the front of the fullness of their testing. That was the pattern ten years ago. Today, we are under the pop YT domain. A pity.

I did a small edit in my post only to point out I don't necessarily think this "reviewer" has an agenda, as follows his disclaimer in one of his messages BTW. Lots of interests command internet marketing, though. That's for sure! He is one of many others. Even though, his first test was pretty incomplete and very distracted. This 2nd one as a reply to the lack of depth of the other one, has 30 minutes, so another ballpark. But, yes, he has forgotten to test a more complete approach using a more capable full technique any experienced shooter will use. Not by definition mandatory manual focus, as a lot of other users usually infer as dichotomy to AF. There are other AF modes such as tap to focus he simply didn't talk about. Or the way we can lock AF up just in order to prevent hunting, as for instance. All this is part of the labor and these AF tests drive me nuts for their bewildering simplicity. I don't have anything against thousands of YT followers and they surely don't bother me at all, on the contrary, they led me to demand more from their input being one of them.

Moreover, lot of these "reviewers" (dozens of thousands of YT followers won't impede my commas there) when not detractors with a business agenda with other brand(s), they simply forget hybrid focus modes or certain features such as touch to focus (actually, an AF mode too) only in order to make their point. This is sad when people start to cancel their orders based on BS or incomplete information which has become mere misinformation in the meantime, as matter of fact, precisely 'cause of that. That puzzles and irritates me enough as tech and picture lover.

For professional use, this is baffling funny: [from/on FAQ:] "Since these settings were pushed to limit, the risk of corrupted frames is high." Guess if that was written on the new GH5 manual... LOL Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

I guess I should be the only one to write it here today for the umpteenth time but tap to focus is already present in my 5-years GF5 and works just fine!

But, no IBIS, no 4K/60p, brick size, etc. I think people are freaking out on GH5 flaws, really overestimating them. You can have solid stabilized outcome based on S35/FF look coupled to a Speedbooster bandinglessly on more than adequate color sampling and high bitrate for soon or with a monitor which is a recorder too, after all, for more less than 1,000 bucks. What's the big deal here? To understand the sweet spot on AF settings or use tap to focus when run-n-gun? C'mon pals, pixel peeping can be dangerous if taken overdosed ; ) There's no other similar camera for the price. End of story :-)

No problem with your findings at all (even though, I guess another picture profile or even higher bitrate through HDMI, as for instance, can bring another outcome : ) I just found it funny enough and very accurate definition BTW ;-) On topic, take a look on this one here: You'll find the same chroma smearing going on with other cameras, take a look on minute 00:46 of that example above. Saturate the colors just a bit and see the ear of the guy. Same effect. So, everything can be controlled either in the camera settings or at post for sure, the more avoidable the possible, I concur though.

What lens? What about tap to focus? Have you tested it for video?

LOL This is "the" joke! Priceless. The best definition of pixel peeper I've ever read ; ) *thumbsup* :-)

The word is, well, there are more than a sole one: the test is quite incomplete *cough cough* Even the guy does (doesn't) believe so! LOL (so... read the comments there : )

Good reason to buy a Speedbooster and go on peaking! ; ) Tap to focus is not a bad idea either... ;-)

Half-half. It does confirm both sides of the coin. Pretty useable, anyways if set up correctly. Speedbooster will operate miracles for sure. The proof is in the pudding, filmmaking is this. Post follows the rule: And here's another interesting sample related to the task... Explanation for that one to close the aperture on the widest end of that zoom lens is beyond me... The reports say is as sharp as a Leica LOL 1-stop of difference is yet half way of light... Maybe the operator didn't find the need for or found the need for deep rather than shallow DOF... : D Hey, this is not full frame! ; ) Distinct perspectives, oh so, we can't all of us share the same scope on reality out there, isn't it? ; )) Noise is grainy, so... filmic? And Dubai's night life is cutely enough cinematic, though :-) The challenge/secret is to know the tools. The capture device is (or assembles) only a set of them.

Who didn't frame St Pauli couldn't arrange a better excuse for a projector lens : ) nice use *thumbsup* :-) Still speaking of 709, here's another anamorphic test here: https://vimeo.com/210491958

Well, more testing coming with and from BMD love... I bet on this one :-)

I guess only on high ISOs, right?

Your karma will refund you... count on it :-) If paid by PayPal, I guess so.

Those 3CCD were magical outside the film world if we can find magic beyond, I'd say.

Indeed. What I find interesting here is the noticeable difference between GH4 and GH5 models.

When have you ordered it?

Choose one for first love... ...and you'll tend to never let other ones to shit her out ;-)

Right. And it just depends on the shooter. People can always go to school and start to actually learn how to set the stuff up and put it out.