jonpais

This is exactly why I've never bought a Sony. Just one thing after another. Thank goodness the a9 is perfect though.

It is unable to display .95 on the EVF. I'm quite certain there is nothing wrong with either your camera or lens.

You might say that!

I have never used the Voigtlander 10.5mm, but according to Lenstip, the lens is a resounding failure. Among the list of cons: weak image quality on the edge of the field of view, huge vignetting, monstrous coma, high astigmatism, visible spherical aberration, significant field curvature, ugly out of focus areas, field of view over two degrees narrower than stated in the specifications, weak price/optics quality ratio.

As an added bonus, should the OP decide to shoot anamorphic, SLR Magic is there, and I wouldn't be at all surprised, given the popularity of the GH5, if Veydra decided to proceed with their plans to make an anamorphic lens as well.

Agree about investing in glass, but not sure what future proof means. I don't think m43 is going away any time soon. Sigma, Samyang/Rokinon, SLR Magic, Kowa, Voigtlander, DJI, Blackmagic, JVC and Schneider are just a few of the manufacturers who have joined the micro four thirds consortium, which demonstrates great confidence in the future of micro four thirds. Also, since the OP already says he thinks the above videos are wonderful, I'm guessing he doesn't necessarily buy the often repeated phrase that all m43 lenses are too sharp and digital looking. For every over-sharpened video I see shot on m43, I see just as many mushy ones taken with hybrid APS-C cameras. Thankfully, as @TheRenaissanceMan states, there also happen to be several third party manufacturers like Veydra and Voigtlander, whose lenses are not only wholly manual, but also excellent optically. In fact, there are few, if any, manufacturers who build lenses of old-world quality like Voigtlander; I think I recall someone once saying they even purchased a m43 camera because of the Nokton lenses alone. Additionally, some of these full frame lenses approach 1 Kg in weight, whereas a typical Panasonic prime or zoom might be around 300 gr. And as another forum member already said, the light weight of native glass has the added advantage of being able to fly the camera on an inexpensive single handed gimbal as well. Since the OP has said he'll be shooting music videos, I'm assuming a gimbal will come in very handy. Since he's also on a limited budget, a single-handed gimbal costs much less than something like the DJI Ronin. If you shoot with these small primes and zooms, it's very discreet, you can shoot just about anywhere without attracting unwanted attention.

That's an excellent tutorial (as far as I can tell, since I don't own the GX80/85), and I especially appreciate hearing his thoughts beginning at 5 min.

It may be that the GH5 is unable to register .95 or whatever in the EVF (same as other G and GH cameras I've owned) but for sure the lens is faster with the XL, and your metering should work correctly as well. Hope that helps.

I know many here will disagree, but I'd go with native lenses. One of the chief reasons for shooting m43 is its compactness. The lenses Robert John uses are among the very finest in the micro four thirds system. Focusing will also be much faster with native lenses. Whatever you decide, stabilization works fine with adapted lenses, so I wouldn't choose one over the other based solely on stabilization alone.

Thanks, I'll give it a shot.

This is too incredible. Would have many uses for me, since my Macbook Pro doesn't have an SD card reader, and I still haven't picked one up yet. But they don't ship to Vietnam!

Nice. How do you transfer the files to your phone? I'd like to try that myself.

The outstanding 50mm f/1.4 and the 42.5mm f/1.2. The Nocticron wiped the floor with the Sigma. I don't own any 75mm ff equivalent micro four thirds lenses to do a direct comparison.

@BTM_Pix That's pretty awesome.

@mercer I think your wrong, wrong, wrong! hahaha. The pictures look beautiful, and that's not something I usually say about shots of flowers and dogs. FWIW, I really wanted to like the Olympus 25mm f/1.2, I've shot quite a bit with it, but I just couldn't warm up to it. I'll probably give it another go some day, but it just doesn't do much for me.

Yes, it can. IBIS may also be assigned to a Fn button.

I've only done one comparison, between a full frame lens along with the SB XL and a native micro four thirds lens, and for me, the magic was in the native lens, not the adapted one.

There might have been more of a desire for this with the GH4 as it has an extra crop in 4K. Now that the GH5 has no extra crop in 4K and there are several native wide angle zooms starting at 7-8mm available...

Anybody game for destroying their new camera, say 'I'.

I wouldn't even dignify Mr. Chris Sully Cortez's comment with a response.

So you can change several parameters simultaneously and view the results live... In camera, you'd have to stop recording, dive into the menu, and you are only able to change one at a time. Could it also adjust curves?

And everyone says it's the red channel you've got to watch out for with the Panasonics. Interesting. So, maybe I should be lowering saturation in camera? Also, I've read that reducing sharpening will help reduce noise, there's most certainly a correlation between the two as you say. But I haven't tested that for myself either. And in addition to the millions of possible combinations in camera, there's also the question of whether it's better to deal with noise in post with a plug in like Neat Video, or adding sharpening in post rather than in camera. So many variables! Edit: What's unusual, for me at least, is that the Cinelike D screen shot looks the flattest, the highlights (except for my t-shirt, which is blown out in all three) appear to be the most controlled, yet the histogram is showing that it's clipping the worst. Why is that, I wonder? BTW, I'm not standing at exactly the same distance from the light in each shot...

I like where you're going with this! i don't think it's as complicated as all that though. For picture profile, I'd choose the one with the greatest dynamic range, for sharpening, as sharp as possible in camera without ringing or haloing, and so on. But I still think everyone should do their own testing to see what works best for them, and if you've got an idea to make that easier... here are three more shots with the LED set at tungsten 3200 K, ISO 200, f/3.2. (1) Cinelike D, (2) Standard (3) Natural. Settings: Sharpening -3, NR -5. Even with tungsten, there's a peak in the blue channel in the shadows using Cinelike D, and with the other two profiles, there's a bump in the red channel in the highlights. Histograms (1) Cinelike D (2) Natural (3) Standard

I could also set my light to tungsten and do another test. Wish I had a model though! Maybe this afternoon I can get my hands on one (ha). I'm dying to know where you're going with this. I think you are our Thomas Edison or something.

If it makes any difference, I was using LED lighting set at 5600 K.