Shirozina

A video 'style' but not a standard. Shallow DOF has lots of drawbacks as a film making device.

If I had to pick one lens for life I'd get another life.

If I had to pick one lens for life I'd get another life.

There's as much chance of an A7 full frame mirrorless camera having an internal ND as it having propellers that pop out and becoming a drone.......
 

Cameras are disposable assets as the technology is in continual development. Having said that if you can't make a good film with what is now available (and available very cheaply) it's not the fault of the equipment......

New menu line - Video Guideline.

Can't believe how 'robust' the 4.2.2 10bit files are - even in V-LOG they are virtually unbreakable (Blue skies remain banding free) even with very heavy adjustments. Coming from a Sony A7s and A7r2 where skies band without any processing this is nothing short of a miracle how Panasonic have done this with a 150mbs codec. Still prefer Cinelike-D for most scenes unless they contain huge contrast ranges as the highlight roll-off is smoother and light shades have more tonal detail.

ProRes is still lossy compression and you have to factor in what each app is doing in the process of transcoding in addition to to the compression. There are some non lossy formats that are pretty good but the data bloat is huge.  Additionally my concern with the new 400mps codec is that if it's compressing every frame individually then overall the compression is going to be more severe than the existing 150mbs codec so it may not be quite the miracle everyone is expecting????

ProRes is still lossy compression and you have to factor in what each app is doing in the process of transcoding in addition to to the compression. There are some non lossy formats that are pretty good but the data bloat is huge.  Additionally my concern with the new 400mps codec is that if it's compressing every frame individually then overall the compression is going to be more severe than the existing 150mbs codec so it may not be quite the miracle everyone is expecting????

Glad I got 4x Newmowa's.....

Honestly buying a second hand Full Frame, that is not a recent model,beside for your ego, is pointless when you can have an m4/3 for 2k usd new.
m4/3 glass is much more advanced and competitive and you can get a more shallow dof for most focal if it s what you are after. 
The compression things is not accurate, its only relative to your camera to subject distance, you can make the same image on any format, just the dof change.

The only advantage is the image ratio if you don t like m4/3,and mayyyyyybbbeee if you shoot landscape and want to close the iris a lot because of the circle of confusion ( but CMOS sensor get noisy on long exposure anyway)
 but in term of functionality those cameras are dinosaurs, I had a Sony A7sii, I had a fun time with it, but I traded it for a m4/3 and never looked back.

If you want an interesting look, shoot polaroid, instax and packfilm...
... or learn to separate your personal preferences from facts. Image quality is not measurable. Specs don't mean jack. No camera in the history of the world is factually "better" than another camera. It depends on the user and is always subjective.

GH5 order placed - the only reasonable response to all this. Thankfully I kept my best M43 glass......

Can't believe how 'robust' the 4.2.2 10bit files are - even in V-LOG they are virtually unbreakable (Blue skies remain banding free) even with very heavy adjustments. Coming from a Sony A7s and A7r2 where skies band without any processing this is nothing short of a miracle how Panasonic have done this with a 150mbs codec. Still prefer Cinelike-D for most scenes unless they contain huge contrast ranges as the highlight roll-off is smoother and light shades have more tonal detail.

Can't believe how 'robust' the 4.2.2 10bit files are - even in V-LOG they are virtually unbreakable (Blue skies remain banding free) even with very heavy adjustments. Coming from a Sony A7s and A7r2 where skies band without any processing this is nothing short of a miracle how Panasonic have done this with a 150mbs codec. Still prefer Cinelike-D for most scenes unless they contain huge contrast ranges as the highlight roll-off is smoother and light shades have more tonal detail.

Banding is easily seen in 8 bit moving images but not necessarily due to them being 8 bit but because of the high levels of compression on internal codecs. 8bit files recorded via HDMI to an external recorder in a good codec like ProRes can be very smooth and banding free even when pushed around in grading. 10 bit allows even more manipulation and opens up the use of LOG without fear of banding.Some cameras on the other hand can't record a blue sky without showing banding even straight out of the camera in a non log profile. 10 Bit RAW is probably just about OK for a Canon 5D3 which tops out at a theoretical 11ish stops of DR but in practice due to it not being able to ETTR perfectly on every shot means 10 stops or less as a practical limit. From this you can generate good 10 or 8 bit files with the benefit of a RAW conversion done outside the camera where quality rather than speed can be prioritised. We know for instance that the RAW converters in NLE's like Resolve are not as good as those for stills in say Adobe Camera RAW or Capture One due to the CPU overheads required  so imagine what a tiny camera CPU does with RAW sensor data in real time in order to spit out an HD 8bit 4.2.0 file at 25mbs........

You presented a Wikipedia as fact - please do yourself a favour and do some proper research which also includes using your own eyes.

Wikipedia is clearly wrong then as anybody with a pair of working eyes can easily prove.

If you are careful you can manually do a vertical or horizontal pan with a shift lens. One thing to avoid with shift lenses and video is moving the camera - panning while having a lots of shift as the aparent movement in the shifted corners can be quite excessive. They are best used for locked off shots. Also If your clients are architects they won't understand a world that is not in 2 point perspective............ 

The thing is Magic Lantern's option for 8bit RAW at ISO 6400 makes perfect sense as the sensor isn't delivering more than 8 stops dynamic range at that ISO any way
So to cut the data rate and save some card space in low light it is a good option.

10 bit won't give you a dynamic range improvement - 8 or 10 bit is the output file bit depth. A camera can have a 14+ stop DR and output this into an 8 bit jpeg image that will look very good - anybody who is working with in stills with RAW capture can tell you this esp if they have a good MF digital back which are even 16 bit capture and you can create absolutely stunning 8bit output files full of subtle graduations in tone and colour that you can only dream of with a DSLR. 8 bit is absolutely fine as an output file .................as long as you nail everything in camera and your cameras internal processing engine isn't compressing the hell out of the image and throwing away image data which unfortunately with internal codecs which are designed for broadcast and not storage it certainly is. Massive lossy data compression is the enemy we are up against - 8 vs 10 bit output is a red herring IMO. The ML RAW hack simply removes this obstacle and the benefits are clear to see. 

If you are careful you can manually do a vertical or horizontal pan with a shift lens. One thing to avoid with shift lenses and video is moving the camera - panning while having a lots of shift as the aparent movement in the shifted corners can be quite excessive. They are best used for locked off shots. Also If your clients are architects they won't understand a world that is not in 2 point perspective............ 

Apart from the fact that the small sensor makes the OP's existing wide shift lenses near useless.........

What about just call it the 'correct' exposure?  On an internal codec the Zebras are linked to the green channel which means you can easily clip the red channel in skintone highlights without being aware of it so knocking the exp down a bit from an ETTR starting point is a good way of avoiding this. Then again ETTR is not my idea of a good way to expose non RAW images anyway - yes you avoid the noise but you also end up placing certain critical tones ( skintones) on different parts of the profile curve depending on your lighting contrast which will make shot matching in post more of a problem.

GH5 order placed - the only reasonable response to all this. Thankfully I kept my best M43 glass......

I've had these as well - maybe it has 4 legs......