Simon Shasha

Hi guys,

I have my GH5 on pre-order. I will also be ordering a Metabones Speed Booster Ultra 0.71x to use on the GH5 with my Sigma 18-35mm F1.8.

However, given that this turns the GH5's crop-factor into x1.4, I started to worry that this will cause vignetting with the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8.

Having conducted my own tests with the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 in the past on a full-frame sensor (http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8444-sigma-18-35mm-f18-on-ff-sensor/?do=findComment&comment=92144), I feel as though the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is actually designed, and can work with, sensors larger than APS-C.

This is something I also noticed with my Sigma 30mm EX F1.4 - which worked perfectly back when I used to use it on the 1D Mark IV (an APS-H sensor).

What I wish to request from GH4 owners, that both own the Speed Booster Ultra 0.71x and Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, is that if they could please test the GH4, with this combination, in 1080P mode (which does not suffer from a 2.4 crop-factor like 4K) and verify that there is no vignetting...

Whats more, given the results I found when using the Sigma 18-35mm with my A7S, I am starting to wonder if the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 will work fine with the Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x - which turns the crop-factor into APS-H (x1.3)...

Hey guys,

Quick question - I plan on using my Nikon 28mm F2.8 AIS via a Metabones Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x.

This will convert the lens into a, roughly, 20mm F2.0.

Now, when I manually dial in the focal-length of the lens into the GH5 to activate IBIS for said focal-length, would I dial in the pre-Speed Boosted focal-length (28mm) or the post-Speed Boosted focal length (20mm)?

I'm gonna assume I would put in the post-Speed Boosted focal length (20mm)?

I'm not interested in it for video, but definitely interested in it for photography.

If it has the same auto-focus system as the X-T2, then I'll sell my A6300, Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS, Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS, MC-11 and Metabones IV EF-E Mount Smart Adapter in a heartbeat.

The XF 23mm F2 WR, XF 35mm F2 WR, and (up and coming) XF 50mm F2 WR look like the holy trinity to me.

If this is 25mbps, I'm damn impressed by what I can get out of it. Pretty ridiculous actually. Thanks for the footage, Luke, much appreciated!

Wait a second, 4K @ 48FPS in 10bit?

Did I read that correctly?

I thought as much. Next thing is to find out if a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 + 0.71x Metabones Speed Booster will vignette on GH5 - given that there's no crop-factor in 4K like GH4.

I'm not sure if I heard correctly, but it seems as though, according to this interview (below), IBIS in the GH5 is only available when using Panasonic lenses?

I thought that perhaps he means only "DUAL IS" is available when using Panasonic lenses, however, the interviewer does not clarify, so I'm unsure...)

Luke, if you're out there, could you shed some light on this?

 

Pretty crazy if true:

1. Slow motion up to 180 fps 

2. much larger number of focus point: 225 vs 49 in the GH4

http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-additional-gh5-specs-180fps-225-focus-points/

3 hours ago, Neumann Films said:

If you could see one test with the GH5, what would it be? Standalone test, as in, not comparing it to another camera (unfortunately).

I'd love to see 10bit V-Log in 4K 24FPS, 1080P 24FPS, but also, want to specifically see if 10bit is available in 1080P at 60FPS (or higher) and what bit-rate that 10bit is.

10bit at a low bit-rate is virtually useless (depending on the codec).

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Haha, no XT-2 for me though. I'm getting a BMPCC next. Am keeping D5500 and deciding if I should keep a6300 as well. Heading out today for some tests. So far, I think I like the a6300 better than the GX85, but I've only tested slog2... today I am giving cine2 a test spin. These consumer 4K cameras have to fill a very specific spot for me... the GX85 has the IBIS but the a6300 has the PDAF. The GX85 has the cool push af button while in manual mode. The a6300 is Super 35mm and it has the 120fps... there's always compromises...

Did you use native lenses with the a6300? If so, which ones?

Get the BMPCC. Trust me. It supersedes any image you can get out of the GX85, X-T2, A6300/A6500. That's not to say those cameras aren't capable, because they are, but the BMPCC is light-years ahead in image quality.

Get a x0.58 Speed Booster, and pair it up with either Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, or Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS, and you'll love it.

Hey Andrew,

Great review!

What makes you feel that the GH5 may ship early/January/before NAB 2017?

1 hour ago, teddoman said:

no, Pro Colour is for no PP

There's a separate EOSHD s-log profile

Ahh, I see. Is that included in the purchase of EOS HD Pro Colour, or is that a separate purchase?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but just wanted to verify - can EOS HD Pro Colour be used with S-LOG2/3?

On 12/12/2016 at 0:16 AM, jonpais said:

This question's already been asked in the GX85 thread.

I see.

Asked, but not answered, it seems. I'll shoot Metabones an e-mail.

Hey guys,

I finally ordered myself the GX85. Though I have the A6300, BMPCC and BMMCC, I feel that the GX85 is just too good to pass up at its price.

Just wanted to know, is it possible to use the BMPCC x0.58 Speed Booster on the GX85?

Has anyone tried this? Would love to know!

Thanks!

There has never been a good war. Not one. I think everyone can agree on this. There are going to be casualties - as much as we don't like it.

I believe Russia is directly what stopped the advance of the Saudi/Qatari/Turkish militias from over-running our military and over-throwing our government. Of course, this viewpoint is rarely, if ever, reiterated on Western mainstream media.

Regardless, people have the choice to believe me or not, I don't mind - my information comes directly from my family and friends on, nearly, a daily basis (thank God for free WhatsApp WiFi calls!). Everyone is ultimately entitled to their point of view.

And I agree with Andrew that not every other Syrian's experience of the war will be like mine, or my family's. Lines have been drawn, sides have been taken, and all of us have been caught between the crossfire in one way or another.

I believe Obama's choice of not using U.S. ground forces directly was simply because the U.S. cannot afford another ground war - both in terms of causalities, morale, support and financially (15 Trillion in debt last time I checked). Having failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the U.S. has lost its military deterrence - Obama bluffed, Putin called it. Further, post-Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, they have also lost whatever credibility they had left as being morally conscious force in the world...

I'll be honest, guys, I find it very difficult to continue discussing this. I hate to sound weak, but it's rather emotionally draining. All I want is for Syria to go back to how it was when I was a kid. I had friends from all different faiths and creeds. People would celebrate each other's holy days as if it were their own. I didn't matter what part of Syria you were from, or what religion you happened to be born into. There wasn't even a concept of "Christian Syrian, Shi'a Syrian, Sunni Syrian, Alawite Syrian, Druze Syria, Jewish Syrian" - we were all just "Syrian".

And the awful truth is, you can see in my very own statements that even I have become a victim of this segregation - I have said, time and again, how I am "Christian Orthodox Syrian". The truth is, I don't like saying it - I just want to say "Syrian"...

All in good time. I hope.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't think we want a US aligned with Russia. Putin's behaviour in Syria has been a problem..

No, the U.S., and their allies in the Gulf, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with Turkey, have been the problem in Syria.

I am saying this as a Syrian. Again.

If it wasn't for Russia's intervention in my country, many minorities, such as myself (Christian Orthodox), and others like me, who believe in secularism, would have been wiped out by the U.S. and the Gulf's proxy militias long ago

I do not want to see my country turned into another U.S. failed state - like Iraq, like Libya.

10 hours ago, FilmMan said:

Syrian War.......   Interesting Video.  Perhaps watch.....

 

 

Thank you for posting this.

As a Syrian, I have been trying to tell this to many for a long time, but they did not listen.

Glad to see this video out there. Thank you.

Just now, mercer said:

Yeah, that is the word on the street. I haven't personally done the math but all reports confirm it is 2.2x. In that video it may be a little more because I use e-stabilizer as well. 

Cool, thanks

That's what I'm hearing too, x2.2 crop.

I'm leaning towards the GX85 for run and gun/something to throw in my jacket, or the A6500 (which has been offered to me by Sony Australia at a 30% discount - $1600AUD/$1185USD).

I'm invested in Sony lenses, and have the official Sigma MC-11 to go with my 18-35mm F1.8, as well as Metabones Canon-EF to Sony-E adapter...but man, I'm on the verge of getting rid of everything and grabbing a GX85 + 20mm F1.7.

I wanna go back to basics...ultra basics :P

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Looks pretty good. I was using the Prolost Neutral settings that were popular for Canon DSLRs... for Panasonic maybe it's Prolost Natural...

But basically turn contrast, sharpening and noise reduction all the way down and then saturation half way. I did not touch the curves or iDynamic.

Where did you notice a benefit with iDynamic?

I also started shooting everything at 4400 Kelvin. I found it was a good all around WB number that worked better than AWB, but still gave me the leeway to correct/push either way in post without too much effort.

I've posted this before, but it gives you a quick idea of my results. I colored it with FilmConvert...

I have been going through a lot of my equipment and deciding what to keep and sell. Every time I think I am definitely selling the GX85, I'll pick it up and the floaty image brings me back to it. 

I am primarily a hobbyist with a few short/feature film ideas I'd like to work on in the next year. Each film has its own look and needs, so I have been testing and testing a bunch of cameras. One of my ideas is a B&W project, with my preliminary tests, the GX85's L-Monochrome is excellent... so much so I have ordered the Rokinon 12mm cine lens (I'm done with lens adapters) to give the GX85 one last test to see if it would be a good option for this upcoming project.

Anyway, I love seeing the results the members of the forum are getting with this camera!!!

Hey Mercer, could you verify for me the crop-factor when shooting 4K - is it x2.2?

Thanks

17 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

Take your own advice.  Your rants about agent orange, depleted uranium, and white phosphorus tells me you don't know anything about the US media.  All those topics have been reported on extensively.  Even several multimillion dollar lawsuits have been won.  I'm sorry but if you don't know about agent orange, depleted uranium, and white phosphorus that is your fault not the American media's.  Stories and lawsuits have been rolling out for years...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/02/23/147302639/monsanto-reaches-settlement-on-agent-orange-class-action-suit

And yeah man we've read your posts and we know exactly where you are coming from.  Your broad sweeping statements about complex issues aren't going to solve any problems.

It's tactics like yours that have turned me off to a lot of documentaries.  With the cheap cameras available we should be living in the golden age of documentaries but when I watch these things inevitably they veer off into conspiracy land.  Anyone that says the US media hasn't covered Agent Orange is just living in an alternate universe.

I never "ranted". In fact, I only mentioned it once...

Regardless, the U.S mainstream media is rubbish. Absolute filth. A morally corrupt conglomerate of six-corporations that control 90% of all news media made in the U.S.A. Complicit for decades with the U.S. military industrial complex and the cronies on Wall Street with whom they share financial. business and social ties.  Any defense you try to mount for it will be in vain to those that are well aware of the lying shit-pile that is the U.S. mainstream media.

Media critic, historian, and Bernie Sanders delegate, Norman Soloman, summed it up well; “One way or another, a military-industrial complex now extends to much of corporate media. In the process, firms with military ties routinely advertise in news outlets. Often, media magnates and people on the boards of large media-related corporations enjoy close links - financial and social - with the military industry and Washington’s foreign-policy establishment.”

It is getting worse, and more concentrated, as time goes on, too. In 1983, 90% of the U.S. mainstream media was owned by 50 companies. Now, that 90% is owned by 6 companies. Four of the top-ten U.S. mainstream media companies have major defense contractors on their boards of directors:

William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group

Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel

John Bryson: Disney (ABC), Boeing

Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton

Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin.

And no, there hasn't been "extensive coverage" regarding Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. forces, nor has there been "extensive coverage" or in-depth reporting on the use and abuse of Depleted Uranium used against Iraqi civilians by U.S. and coalition forces. No in-depth reporting, nor war-crimes charges, or anything even remotely close to war-crimes charges, no compensation for the Iraqi civilians (and the majority of U.S. soldiers that loaded Depleted Uranium rounds).

Why has there been no charges? No mass outcry? No major compensation for the victims? Because they great majority of people don't even know about it...

The only organisations that reported in-depth on the use of Depleted Uranium on Iraqi civilians were health organisations and journals, like WHO and The Lancet.

And even then, Hans von Sponeck, a former UN assistant secretary general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq (who resigned in protest of U.S.-backed sanctions) said "I saw in Geneva how a WHO mission to conduct on-spot assessments in Basra and southern Iraq, where depleted uranium had led to devastating environmental health problems, was aborted under U.S. political pressure."

Do you think they want the masses to be aware of this? Do you think the six-corporations that own the mainstream media want people to know about this? I'm sure General Electric, which owns COMCAST(NBC, MSNBC, CNBC), and made $11.6 billion in 2012 from military contracts with the U.S. government, wants their viewers to be anti-war. I'm sure General Electric is telling the media companies they own to publish Depleted Uranium stories "extensively"...

"Reported on extensively by the U.S mainstream media" - give me a break. Sorry if this offends you, but that is a rather demeaning remark to say, especially with respect to the victims of Depleted Uranium...

What's "extensive" to you? A few news briefs, a few short-wire stories? I'd say "extensive" is one article a week, no?

The war began in 2003 (though the ramifications still continue until this day), with the U.S. military officially withdrawing on the 18 December, 2011.

That's 8 years and 8 months (448 weeks). Please provide an "extensive" list of coverage. At least 448 articles/news reports published/broadcast by the U.S mainstream media about the use of Depleted Uranium on Iraqi civilians by U.S. and coalition forces. If not, please provide at least half that...

Pointless, anyway. Your mind is made up, as is mine.

I will say this before I leave indefinitely. I do believe there is a media, and journalists, out there that are honorable. That seek the truth. That are not controlled by corporations and boards of directors. They exist, and I know they exist, because they are the small, exceptional, subtle few that did write about Depleted Uranium and Iraqi civilians deaths by means of their own independent ways.  And I think their voices are growing ever stronger and the people are listening ever more intently. In a world where the mass mainstream media has become so concentrated and controlled by the few, whom have the power to influence the many, the rise of independent voices can only be a good thing. Though I supported neither Trump nor Hillary (I supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein), the one good thing that has come out of this shit-show of an election is, what seems to be, the beginning of the end of the mainstream media...

4 hours ago, Damphousse said:

There is a serial sex assaulter and a white supremacist in the White House.  And this makes you happy?!

I realize you must be one of those one issue voters but you need to wake up and start seeing the world as the complex thing that it is.  Going on and on about Syria while the sex assaulter in chief appoints a climate change denier to the EPA is delusional.  When the entire planet is polluted no one is even going to remember there was a war in Syria.  Wake up!

Talk about cherry-picking my words and taking them out of context - I was talking about how there is a sense of awakening in the air regarding the mainstream Western media losing its power and influence.

You don't know me, mate. Drop the condescending attitude.

2 hours ago, MattH said:

The only issue I would take in how you phrase things is using the word "Western" or "US led".  There is no more a coherent western position than there is a coherent Syrian position.  By saying western it sounds to some that you are against 'western' liberalist values such as free speech etc, which I am sure is not the case.   If you were to say "Globalist corporatist factions of the western establishment" or something along those lines, it would help avoid this misconception.

The fact is that these factions are only getting away with this because the corporatist media are brain washing everyone.  They exploit the fact that people understandably have suspision of dictatorial governments, but if the media were honest that western agencies where arming and militarily supporting wahabist islamists (the word extremist is obviously superfluous), and were honest about what these people represent, then more people in western countries would be opposed to it.

I agree wholeheartedly

And I see how my wording may be taken as a generalisation - which I didn't intend, but yes, when I say "Western" and "U.S. led", I do mean the corporate run-and-owned media, and military-industrial-complex influenced governments of the West - not the citizens of the West, nor Western values - which I cherish, personally.

Every so often, I am given hope when I read posts like yours - it reminds me that not everyone has fallen victim to the propaganda the corporate Western media has put out against Syria (and Russia).

Back when the war began, and all these "rebels" from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Chechnya, and so on, began flooding into Syria and attacking our towns and villages, I would turn on mainstream Western media, and they were framing it as some sort of popular uprising for democracy. Nobody was saying a word about the Wahhabi and Salafi filth that the Gulf/Turks and NATO had sent our way - and when they did, they would call them "army defectors", "freedom fighters", "rebels fighting for democracy" - nor did they ever say a word about how our country was being punished because our government refused to bend the knee to the Saudi/Qatari/Turkish gas pipeline...

I really thought it was going to be the end of us - I thought that everyone in the West was going to fall for it the way they fell for the whole Iraq WMD lie...

We're still here though. Still holding on...

You know, the second point you made is very important - very crucial. It actually reminded me of an article (http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html) written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for EcoWatch back in February called "Syria: Another Pipeline War".

He said:

"As we focus on the rise of ISIS and search for the source of the savagery that took so many innocent lives in Paris and San Bernardino, we might want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and petroleum here on our own shores.

America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance."
 

Somebody actually emailed me a video today that address that exact article, and how Western mainstream media never gives their audience the important facts or the full-story (in this case, regarding Syria):
 

Perhaps the fall of the Clintons, and their neo-con and elitist cohorts and partners in the mainstream media, is the beginning of the end of the mainstream media...

I can't help but feel that there is a sense of awakening in the air - it seems as though the great majority of people do not trust the mainstream media anymore. For me, personally, I couldn't understand how anyone could trust them after the Iraq WMD debacle - not only the lies and manipulation, but the way the mainstream media cheered on and beat the drums of war was disgusting. F**king disgusting.

I'm glad you are a truth seeker, Matt. It is refreshing to see

56 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Simon Sasha, again, you seem to thrive and make dreams, because you are living in a western world country, not in Russia, not in Azerbaijan, not in Nigeria. 

There are people protesting everywhere in the US because they afraid that their elected president will not respect minorities and communities, the other day Pence (the vice president) went to the theater, and the actors declared their fears on stage, and audienced boo=ed the vice president. Could you do that in Syria 10 years ago? Can you do that outside Kremlin?

Also, Australia has the strictest immigration policy right now in the whole world. Have you not notice that tiny islands a lot of hundreds of miles away from the whole Oceania continent have thousands of people living in terrible conditions? Who is going to make a documentary about them?

See, your dream is someone's else nightmare.

I hope you can go back to your city soon, and do your documentary.

I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Sure, living in wealthy countries with free-markets, free-enterprise and free-speech, is great, but what has that got to do with anything? I never said there is anything wrong with such things. I wish a high-standard of living and freedom of expression was available to everyone in the world. More so, I wish governments stopped investing billions in weapons and more in education, health and science. 

Regardless, that was not what I was talking about, nor complaining about. What I said was very clear and simple - I said that Western Exceptionalism regarding war and war-crimes is a problem.

I'm sorry, but if those protesters think that Clinton is any better than Trump, than they are in for a very rude awakening.

Clinton is a war-criminal. I am not going to pour my heart out again regarding what her, and Obama's, foreign policies did to my family, friends, and village. I already did that in an earlier post and it was hard enough.

As I stated before, I do not think Trump, nor Clinton, are really any different. I am not fond of either. As I said, I supported, and still support, Jill Stein.

However, what I am sick of is Clinton supporters blaming everyone but themselves for this debacle. They supported one of the most unpopular politicians in US history in an election against someone like Trump. They could have had Bernie Sanders - a genuine, decent human-being, who was not propped up by the cronies on Wall St, the Military Industrial Complex, big pharmaceuticals, and Saudi Arabia, but they pushed him aside. They tore him down and burnt him in favour a corporate shill.

You think I'm going to feel sorry for those protesters? Not only after what they did to Bernie Sanders, but what their dear leader Clinton did to my family, to my home? You think I care about their protesting?

Put yourself in my shoes. Put that in perspective. Now tell me how to feel...

And I don't know why you're bringing up Australia's immigration policy - I have been against it for years, and have fought for the human-rights of immigrants for a long time.

I can't save the world, mate. I told you already, I don't believe in romanticism like that. I believe in being pragmatic. Realistic. I will do what I can. And right now, I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your narrative, but I have a sense of urgency to create a documentary about the plight of my own people first.

Call that selfish, I don't care. I don't see it that way.

Also, regarding the cast of "Hamilton" speech, I found it disingenuous. However, I think Mr. H.A. Goodman summed it up far better than I could:
 

45 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Of course, there's an argument I'd make that Western republicanism/democracy as defined by the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights is a good thing, and those that can adapt to something similar have a real potential for societal advantage. Which I think is true.  It allows liberal freedoms within structure; room for innovative enterprise too.

I agree with this 100%.
 

And for those that are interested, here is an epic take-down of Obama, and all the phony liberal progressives in the West:
 

Just now, Trek of Joy said:

I'm in my 40's, I've shot on Betacam so I'm more than thrilled with the powerful tools we have available today. I'm also heavily invested in Sony, but starting to rethink that decision since I also shoot a lot of stills and I'm really liking everything the XT2 does.

Nice  You've probably got more experience than me, then, I'm 31

X-T2 looks great. Colours are awesome. I'm basically in your position - heavily invested in Sony, but tempted by X-T2 - mainly for photography, actually.

I use my Blackmagic Micro setup for more serious shoots/clients - but never for "run and gun" stuff.

I am really liking the image from the GX85. Especially the 5-Axis stabilisation performance, and really good rolling-shutter performance. I'm considering the GX85 with a 20mm F1.7, and Metabones SB for the Canon-EF primes I already own.

I'm not someone that shoots in "no light", so any camera than can handle ISO800 is plenty for me. I have really high hopes for the GH5. Also hoping to see a Blackmagic Pocket Mark II in 2017