jonpais

@Charlie If, as you say, you intend to shoot both stills and video; and if you will be shooting in a controlled setting where you can either use a tripod, a monopod or something like the Ronin M - I would still recommend the X-T2. The image quality is simply awesome. If however, you or the subject will be moving around a lot, or you don't want to be bothered with a tripod or gimbal, the G85 would be an excellent choice. In my opinion, the image quality is better than the GH4, it has a superior EVF and built in stabilization. You would also not have to invest in new lenses. And for what you are getting, it is dirt cheap.

I had my first opportunity to go out and use the G85 along with the Leica Nocticron. I much prefer the smaller size of the G85 to the GH4, and the EVF is vastly superior - I can actually see the entire image with my glasses on, and it looks much brighter and sharper as well. As far as the LCD screen is concerned, I don't see any improvement compared to the GH4 and even in overcast light I found myself relying on the EVF. With the camera set to AFS, the camera was still hunting, but when I got home I found that if I turned off focus when shutter button is pressed in the menu, set the camera to MF and use Auto Focus Lock, the lens doesn't hunt any longer. After spending a couple weeks with the Fuji XT2, it is a joy having zebras and a histogram again. No need to keep bracketing my shots to ensure I've got exposure. Battery life is also excellent. AWB may be a touch better than on the GH4, but it is still unreliable, so I set white balance manually. Leaving the camera on AWB, it continually gave me bluish or magenta skin tones in the shade, even when I set WB to cloudy. When I got home and viewed the images, I was kind of disappointed in the AF (no big surprise there), but the colors are pleasing enough and in spite of the lack of an AA filter I saw no evidence of moire or aliasing. Neither did I see any of the over sharpening, crushed shadows or clipped highlights of many of the videos posted online. I used Natural , set the curve to blacks +1, and turned down contrast and sharpening to -4, noise at 0 and I think I left saturation alone. I don't do excessive color grading or anything, and I believe it would only take a few seconds to adjust the colors by simply correcting one clip and pasting the correction on the rest. As far as I can tell from my first outing, the G85 is going to replace my GH4. Oh, and having stabilization in camera is wonderful. So after just a couple hours of shooting, I'd say that for vlogging or any situation where you or the subject are always on the move, the G85 is the camera to get; if you shoot a lot of stills, or shoot video in a more controlled setting, or don't mind using a monopod or tripod, the XT2 is the way to go. And if you are even considering purchasing the GH4 at this point, one word: don't.

The Zhiyun Crane

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I'm not seeing anything earth-shattering about the image quality here, 4K 60p or no. Certainly nothing that would make me want to sell my offspring to buy a GH5.

When lenses like the Veydra and Xeen were introduced, one of the very first things tested by camera operators was sharpness. The same when speed boosters became popular. Of course, there are dozens of other factors to take into account as well, such as light fall off at the corners, color rendition, etc. We all know resolution is not the only factor that makes a lens great. At the same time, at the risk of contradicting myself, according to one of the most prestigious manufacturers of optical instruments, Cooke, has published a document which says that any good lens produced in the last 30 years should be good enough for 4K. Which does not mean that I can't tell the difference when shooting, for example, my Nocticron at f/1.2 and at f/2.8 - the images I've shot in 4K when using a tripod look softer at f/1.2 than at f/2.8. And even though my $300 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has higher resolution than the Nocticron, I don't consider it a better lens, far from it.

The crop factor has nothing to do with anything. Where did this notion that filmmakers don't want optically superior lenses ever come from? Yes, it does matter.

Very cool. But I wouldn't expect great shakes from 180 fp/s.

Don't get me wrong - I love Fuji lenses, and I can well understand why so many reviewers own or would like to own at least half of the 23 or so lenses Fuji manufactures. But I would be skeptical of the MTF charts of the manufacturer. Here are the findings of Lens Tip, which support my statement that resolution climbs very slowly as the lens is stopped down, and that both center and corner sharpness are not superb wide open. ideally, a lens should reach peak performance when closed down two stops. I'm not saying resolution is the sole criterion for judging a lens, and what is satisfactory for one person may not be for another: in fact, I recently viewed some stills from their 50-140mm f/2.8 wide open, and thought they looked absolutely sensational. I'm just saying, that of the many MTF charts I've seen, it appears the the fast Fuji lenses require a lot more stopping down to reach their 'sweet spot'. It takes closing down some three stops for the lens to achieve its highest resolution, the first time I've seen such a result. But the 56mm f/1.2 manages to have at least three stops where resolution is superb, which is without question an excellent result. All I'm saying is that unless you consistently use their fastest primes wide open, it is a useless expenditure, because if you regularly shoot at say, f/4 or f/5.6, there will be an insignificant difference between the primes and one of the slower zooms. And this goes for any lens lineup, including my favorite u43 lens, the Nociticron. But, as Sebastian says, there may well be a color shift (towards yellow) noticeable with some of the newer lenses; or if you often use manual focus, the clutch focus may be important. But you should be aware that you are trading the quicker, more silent operation of the newer lenses for the noisier, slower focusing of the faster, older primes. One more thing is that I just got home and had a chance to finally try balancing the X-T2 on the Zhiyun Crane. Someone at another website claims to have balanced the X-T2 with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and listed some 6 or so lenses that weighed less and that should also be usable with the Crane. Which is totally erroneous, because even with the 35mm f/2, one of their smaller lenses, it is impossible to balance the tilt because the protruding bit for installing the piece for longer, heavier lenses prevents the camera from being moved far enough forward for perfect balance. And I think in forums, it is important to distinguish fact from opinion. That I dislike variable aperture universal zooms is an opinion, which I support with reasons; being unable to balance a camera/lens combination is a fact which I can demonstrate with a video should anyone be interested. Speaking of which, I would like to see the work of someone who has used adapted lenses with the Fuji, in order to ascertain whether there is any advantage whatsoever in using vintage lenses for their 'character', as opposed to using the sensational Fuji lenses.

@scotchtape They'll probably ask you to send them a video of the problem.?

It will be shaky

I've only been able to find a few examples of the Fuji XT2 with a Zhiyun Crane on YouTube, most of it not very good. When I get back home, I'll have to see how that works out, since one of the things holding many back from getting the Fuji is lack of stabilization.

The Panasonic G cameras are really optimized for video - IBIS, articulating screen and touch screen, as well as a great UI. The Fuji is primarily a stills camera that just happens to have some of the best color out of an APS-C sensor. Fuji lenses are superb. If you're making a short film, it's not as if IBIS is the be all and end all: I would still use a gimbal for critical work (like walking around with the camera). So most of my shots with the Fuji have been on sticks, but with the f/2 lenses you could fly it on a small handheld stabilizer. So I am biased: I love Fuji's color enough to make some sacrifices. And I haven't sold all my Lumix bodies yet either. ?

I own the XT2 and can highly recommend it as well

I often prefer setting the camera to manual mode and using AF lock on my Fuji or touch AF on my Lumix. That allows me to see peaking to confirm focus.

H265 would be a great option since it will deliver the same image quality at half the bit rate.

I just have to quote this when I finish writing my post about how internet forums are really driven by economics, not true value. Everything you buy, be it a bar of soap or a condom, has marketing costs attached to it. And I wouldn't want to buy one used! Electronics companies spend on average 10% of their revenue on marketing, the lowest percentage of investment of any of the manufacturing sectors. If they didn't they would perish. Also, marketing is the bread and butter of many filmmakers, cameramen and editors, and it is the only way your work will reach a broader audience.

@fuzzynormal so I understand the Fuji love, but if you don't use these fast lenses at their widest aperture all the time, I consider them a waste of money. Some fast primes reach miraculous levels of resolution when stopped down a touch, but the Fujis need to be stopped down a lot to reach their full potential.

Just a simple question: why is it that every Fuji owner recommends the fastest primes, like the 56mm f/1.2 and the rest, saying they are brilliant from wide open, when MTF charts show this is clearly not so? The 56mm barely meets decency levels wide open. And the autofocus of some of the earlier faster lenses is much slower as well. Because whether you purchase a 16mm f/1.4 or a 23mm f/1.4, you'd have to use it often at wide open to justify the cost, as the slower f/2 or zoom options probably perform just as well by say f/4. Just wondering...

@Vesku are you prepared to spend upwards of $2000.000 USD to upgrade from the GH4? And what if the dynamic range, continuous autofocus and low light performance were no better than the G85? Excessive noise reduction, oversharpening to the point of destroying detail? Come on, you've been going on about this forever, I'm on your side now. ???

GH5 will ship March 4th according to one source at 43Rumors. Since I already purchased the G85 and XT2 my enthusiasm is somewhat dampened. The 4K 60p is interesting because, like everyone else, I like slo mo; 10 bit 4:2:2 less so because I never do any heavy grading, just some color correction and a little LUT, usually no more than 15%. I'm not expecting any great shakes re: continuous autofocus or low light performance. And Panasonic colors have been consistently meh. Is anyone else seriously expecting Panasonic to rock your world?

And since Cinegain brings up cost, I'm at work on yet another off-putting post ? that examines the vetting process that every new piece of photographic equipment goes through in most Internet forums, from initial announcement to the first beta testers, speculation about features, reaction to the first reviews, and the relationship between economics (purchasing power) and user opinions about gear. I'm finding recently that gear costing in the range of $700 USD gets many more favorable posts than gear in $2,000+ territory. Many users are interested in 'bang for the buck', not just the very best money can buy. I often read statements like 'it is 90% as good as this... [insert name of product], but in my opinion, it is that 10% that makes the difference between cameras and lenses that just meet expectations and those that blow your mind.

Also, I don't see anybody crying. I see thousands of creative professionals - graphic designers, photo editors and film editors - who have been faithful to Apple for years, who realize that Tim Cook does not understand or care about what we want. He believes we should be able to work on an iPad Pro.

Sure millions of people around the world use the MBPr to look at FB, or to be seen at Starbucks. But a machine costing $4,200 + Apple Care should be optimized for video and photo editing, don't you think?

Testing is deeply flawed. He also says this is a problem with all 18-35 lenses, but does not give any supporting evidence of this. Plus, the TouTuber only tests with the Nikon 7200. Does he only own one camera body? Why doesn't he try the lens on other bodies? And not a piece of paper, but an actual real world test. One test with a single ruled sheet of A4 paper at an angle does not a test make. The video I shared that was shot with the Sony a6500 maintains focus on the subject even at the extreme edges of the frame, and apparently works better than other adapted lenses. That's another issue: adapted lenses will never work better than OEM lenses in autofocus. You say the problem is widely known but you share a video with a mere 63 hits. Not quite what I expected from you. Edit: Google any of the lenses you recommend and add 'autofocus problems', and you'll get hundreds of articles about autofocus issues as well, including your beloved Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L.