maxotics

Sorry to interrupt this fine threat, but did you guys notice @TheRenaissanceMan's signature
"Tungtsen fo' life"
HA HA HA! (and agree, at least in the winter)

Sorry to interrupt this fine threat, but did you guys notice @TheRenaissanceMan's signature
"Tungtsen fo' life"
HA HA HA! (and agree, at least in the winter)

A lot of people are in the same boat, doesn't seem like we'll ever see "the one"
I've been bouncing between two systems - Fuji and Sony for the last couple years - after being a longtime Canon 5d2/3 shooter while dabbling in Nikon with the d750, the Samsung NX1, the GH4 and a few others. I dumped Canon when the a7rII was released, picked up Fuji to get smaller and a better lens lineup - but Fuji has no IBIS which I find to be really useful. M43 don't do it for me on the stills side, so it would be a video only solution. Everything else has its warts. The d850 is really appealing, but that would mean moving back to a DSLR and I don't like fiddling with a mirror and live view, and I don't like the OVF after using high spec EVF's.
But for you, check out the Sony 12-24/4 - there's a fantastic comparison thread on Fred Miranda that shows some prime-like performance compared to Zeiss primes. Or get a Nikon adapter for the 14-24.

Not saying DPAF specifically, but a hybrid system with PADF like what Fuji, Sony, Olympus, and Nikon1 use - you know the rest of the camera industry.
I've seen people say similar things to "the colour doesn't fall apart in the same way the Sony does," but it looks like the gh5s is worse to my eyes. 

I have time, I only work for my own project (but I'm printed internationally), so I'm going to invest in Foveon.
Next week, I will try the SD Quattro with some old sigma lens like the 50mm f2.8 macro and the 17-70mm (I don't need hyper fast glass), I hope it's going to be easier to manual focus than on the dp.

@maxotics YESSSS!
And here's your profile pic:

I put the Excel file where you, or anyone, can get it, if interested in the code.  It's a freakin' mess.  Lost of old stuff in there, but if you're like me, you just need to poke around to get what bits you want.  The hardest part for me was figuring out how to get the RAW data out as integer values.  Turned out it could be done in a few lines of Python code.
Excel with VBA Download: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d6-tBeVcbyiVOCXgSRiV2eNe80ipfruR
PYTHON
import rawpy
import numpy
raw = rawpy.imread('D:\\Files2018_Maxotics_Analysis\\RAWExplainDR\\7D_RAW\\DNGs\\M08-2120_DNG_000001\\M08-2120_000520.DNG')
rawdata = raw.raw_image
numpy.savetxt("D:\\Files2018_Maxotics_Analysis\\RAWExplainDR\\7D_RAW\\DataToCSVs\\dng520.csv", rawdata, delimiter=",")

In my ongoing self-appointed role as "LOG gamma" police, I've created a video that shows how RAW is processed into images we use, both for photography and video.  It drives me nuts that people talk about 14+ stops of DR, as if noise, or sensor pixel sensitivity, stays constant from lower to higher values.  After 5 stops, IMHO, noise makes any extra DR recorded by the sensor quite undesirable.   Further, even in 5 stops of DR there is a huge difference between how well cameras record DR even in fairly well exposed image.  That is to say, the GH5S isn't better only because it can record in low light.  It can be better because even at ISO 800 it will get a richer image in the shadows.  However, it is still 8-bit.  It still throws out gobs of sensor data.  Well, enough of that.  Another video to put you to sleep
 

Please change your member status to "Log Police" in your profile

In my ongoing self-appointed role as "LOG gamma" police, I've created a video that shows how RAW is processed into images we use, both for photography and video.  It drives me nuts that people talk about 14+ stops of DR, as if noise, or sensor pixel sensitivity, stays constant from lower to higher values.  After 5 stops, IMHO, noise makes any extra DR recorded by the sensor quite undesirable.   Further, even in 5 stops of DR there is a huge difference between how well cameras record DR even in fairly well exposed image.  That is to say, the GH5S isn't better only because it can record in low light.  It can be better because even at ISO 800 it will get a richer image in the shadows.  However, it is still 8-bit.  It still throws out gobs of sensor data.  Well, enough of that.  Another video to put you to sleep
 

In my ongoing self-appointed role as "LOG gamma" police, I've created a video that shows how RAW is processed into images we use, both for photography and video.  It drives me nuts that people talk about 14+ stops of DR, as if noise, or sensor pixel sensitivity, stays constant from lower to higher values.  After 5 stops, IMHO, noise makes any extra DR recorded by the sensor quite undesirable.   Further, even in 5 stops of DR there is a huge difference between how well cameras record DR even in fairly well exposed image.  That is to say, the GH5S isn't better only because it can record in low light.  It can be better because even at ISO 800 it will get a richer image in the shadows.  However, it is still 8-bit.  It still throws out gobs of sensor data.  Well, enough of that.  Another video to put you to sleep
 

In my ongoing self-appointed role as "LOG gamma" police, I've created a video that shows how RAW is processed into images we use, both for photography and video.  It drives me nuts that people talk about 14+ stops of DR, as if noise, or sensor pixel sensitivity, stays constant from lower to higher values.  After 5 stops, IMHO, noise makes any extra DR recorded by the sensor quite undesirable.   Further, even in 5 stops of DR there is a huge difference between how well cameras record DR even in fairly well exposed image.  That is to say, the GH5S isn't better only because it can record in low light.  It can be better because even at ISO 800 it will get a richer image in the shadows.  However, it is still 8-bit.  It still throws out gobs of sensor data.  Well, enough of that.  Another video to put you to sleep
 

Great explainer. Helpful primer on photographic data. You should be a teacher, if you aren't one already.

This is a very interesting comment. 
I sort of laugh when DXO Mark assigns a good "landscape" score for 14+ stops of dynamic range (that I doubt are really there) as if we need 14 stops of dynamic range to shoot landscapes. Granted, the zone system asks for 10, but most color landscape photography (almost all of the best stuff) is shot on slide film, which has 5-6 stops of dynamic range. 
A printed photo will never have more than five stops of contrast (except with vantablack). So anything with a lot more dynamic range in the original scene will either look washed out or need to be compressed in processing or with an ND grad for a print. Even the zone system usually results in a rather tone-mapped print. (I never thought the zone system and tone mapping would work well in color–see Peter Lik's nicely composed but garishly processed photos. But then I realized it sort of can–see the Revenant, which is beautifully processed.)
The best looking (color) images I've seen, at least technically, are relatively "flat" scenes shot on 4x5 Velvia and viewed as slides on a light table–comprising four stops of scene dynamic range viewed backlit on an analogue display with as much contrast (display dynamic range) as an OLED and far better resolution and color. Looks hyper-real. Hyper-saturated. 
The Sigma doesn't get close. Not even close. But it does get a lot closer than most dSLRs.
(Fwiw, LED screens can display almost 10 stops of contrast, as backlit displays are much more contrasty than front-lit. OLEDs and plasma can display even more, but room ambience washes it out and you need a very high nit (10,000+) display to get the effect of a HDR display, which is even more stunning than the light table but not commercially viable.)
Furthermore, this gets controversial so take it with a grain of salt, but I had to grade footage from a high end 4k camera with a bayer sensor to match Kodak motion picture film. I used the vector scope to match chips on a color checker chart to set up a basic grade and found two things: even when everything matched (same saturation and hue) the film looked more saturated; and I could never match the vectorscopes perfectly because the graded video had a more diffuse point cloud around each color, the film had narrow peaks. I'm generalizing here, of course, but I believe Bayer sensors have inherent limitations. (So does Foveon, just different.)

In my ongoing self-appointed role as "LOG gamma" police, I've created a video that shows how RAW is processed into images we use, both for photography and video.  It drives me nuts that people talk about 14+ stops of DR, as if noise, or sensor pixel sensitivity, stays constant from lower to higher values.  After 5 stops, IMHO, noise makes any extra DR recorded by the sensor quite undesirable.   Further, even in 5 stops of DR there is a huge difference between how well cameras record DR even in fairly well exposed image.  That is to say, the GH5S isn't better only because it can record in low light.  It can be better because even at ISO 800 it will get a richer image in the shadows.  However, it is still 8-bit.  It still throws out gobs of sensor data.  Well, enough of that.  Another video to put you to sleep
 

I'm 56.  I went to public schools in NYC in the late 70s.   They had large populations of blacks, Puerto Ricans, and other minorities who had few opportunities in the white-collar world.  Today, on YouTube, Marques Brownlee makes a living doing tech content, on his terms, in a way that was probably unthinkable to his parents when he was born.  You also have Dagogo Altraide, of "ColdFusion" who has 1.5 million happy subscribers (like me).  Or how about Olufemii?   My guess is that 30 years ago there were few opportunities for @Oliver Daniel to do anything creative on his own in Manchester.   If you were born 30 years ago what would you be doing then?  I can get as upset about this stuff as you, like "Game of Thrones" which is on your quality list   We all have different tastes. 
You haven't been on your forum much.  You are EXCEPTIONALLY lucky that you have a platform/business in which you have some freedom of choice, freedom that is still not available to billions on this planet.  If what you say is correct, and the World has totally lost it, then what hope for anyone?  Do you think some young person, who finds his way to Berlin with dreams of making films, wants to read this stuff on EOSHD?  That person is who you want to keep in the back of your head.  Live and let live, Andrew.  I strongly urge you to go watch the film "Sullivan's Travels" again to find your way back.
 

I don't know if I mentioned this before, Bill Claff did a DR test of some Sigma cameras and found a DR of 6.  He was flamed off some forums for reporting those findings, which I believe true.  But they do NOT make a difference, at least to me.  We don't look at images beyond that range.  The flip side of the question is, aren't the Nikon images too low in contrast (too washed out?).  Nikon has the widest DR tested.  But again, the question isn't how much DR of the physical world a camera captures, but how well it can deliver sensor values into our 6 DR viewing space.  In my tests, when I've tried to match bayer images with Sigma images I have never been able to get the same saturation look.  The bayers always look slightly washed out in comparison.  That's to say, if you do get the Sigma camera and have the time to work each RAW image to match contrast, the Sigma will still maintain that 3D look--definitely against an APS-C sized sensor.
As for why no one uses it in a studio.  Let me be blunt.  A studio is for fast, efficient professional work where the end-user is almost never looking for the kind of quality that separates cameras.  Therefore, the Sigma is too slow.  Second, most photographers are technically weak; that is, they don't really understand what the camera is doing under the hood.  Third, they need to justify in their mind why their camera is already the best.  To be fair, as I've said, I would not use a Sigma cameras for professional work.  I'd only use it as a fine art photographer.  I'd DEFINITELY use it for portraits, but again, not for typical professional work--it's just too slow and time is money!   If you're just starting out and don't have the money for a D810/D850, the Sigma will give you a Medium Format look that I believe will impress people.  
I did some tests I did 5 years ago trying to match bayer to Sigma cameras.  I couldn't do it.  But again, if I don't know any better (like most people ), bayer images are fine!
http://maxotics.com/2012/11/26/sigma-dp2s-vs-sony-nex5-with-18-55mm/
  

And yet people will complain over and over about a camera having 12 stops of DR instead of 14+, and call it "not a cinema camera because the DR is too low"
 

I say this until I'm blue in the face.  I'd add how a good Gaffer shapes "good" light.  Day-for-night is an example of how cinematographers used good light to get the look they want (as if night) instead of a super grain/noisey image they'd get if they shot in real night.  Another way to say what you're saying, is the only difference between an A7S/GH5S in good light shaped to look, say "romantic" and an A7D/GH5S in low light which is naturally "romantic" is the second will be full of noise.  Both can look equally "romantic" if the gaffer knows his stuff.  Shooting in low light should ALWAYS be avoided at ALL COSTS unless NOISE is what you're after.  I understand most people will use these cameras outdoors, or indoor where they can't control the light.  For those purposes, those cameras fit the bill!  But for studio/set work?  Put your money in lights and modifiers--control light/noise so your camera DOES NOT STRUGGLE, don't become a slave to the camera's signal/noise ratio    

The link led to a Adorama add for a "Canon EOS Dedicated TTL Off-Camera Shoe Cord 2, 2' Long." Like 10 US dollars.

You might look at this too.  He did one for a high end PC, and one for $800
 

For this reason... BM and other companies, I'm going to wait till at least  after NAB 2018 to satisfy by ever growing G.A.S.

The a7s was introduced at NAB 4 years ago and now with Sony's newest sensor m43 has caught up, until the a7s3 gets a refresh similar to this. While the gh5s is impressive, I'm still waiting to see what Sony brings - since it'll have IBIS and likely PADF.
Used a7sII's are selling in the $1700 range on Fred Miranda, for me that makes the gh5s a tough sell as I have no native m43 glass and would need a speed booster to get a s35 FOV. As always its great to have options.

After having some time to digest and looking at some footage…
I know it goes against the way they’re marketing it, but the GH5s seems more suited to events and weddings where you don’t have much light control, whereas the GH5 is for more fast paced commercial work where you do (and use manual glass where gimbal work is a nightmare). I see no image quality improvements outside of low light, and I see several downgrades in terms of versatility in what modern producers expect from a stills form factor cam. 
I honestly like that Panasonic have released it, but I think that it should cost a bit LESS than the GH5 if anything…even with the free v-log. 
And despite some hyperbolic comments here, there is no way either camera is comparable to the EVA. In a high end workflow, they are just two different types of b-cam.

I want to see the difference between this and the A7sii in rolling shutter.
The IBIS can be replaced to some extent for low light street videography (wherein your camera and gear won't be visible enough) by using something like new Ronin-S (which btw you could make even smaller by 6-7 inches or so, by removing the lower bit and mounting on something tiny).
I guess there are work arounds to the IBIS, and Panasonic just wanted to squeeze out the Mazimum Possible real estate from the sensor, to push it into and beyond Full Frane Low light territory. And they seem to have succeeded. While in 2:3 photo modes it may not be apparent, but in 16:9 video the difference in crop between the GH5 and GH5s would be very noticeable (even with the multi-aspect video preserving crop on the GH5). ["The Four Thirds sensor wastes 25% of the sensor area when cropping to video mode, and 7.4% of the image circle (diagonally). The APS-C, on the other hand, wastes only 16% of the sensor size, and 4.5% of the image circle.")]. I am guessing this 25% is huge for low light. 
http://m43photo.blogspot.in/2013/05/multi-aspect-sensor.html?m=1
 
I also think some crazy over-sized lens designs (floating lens element in a super wide diametre lens) on M43 could add quite a few stops of stabilization. Maybe that's thr Next Tech Development in M43. 
Low light and AF were the ONLY weaknesses of Panasonic IMHO, and it seems to have addressed one of those pretty well.