kinvermark

+1. This the big problem with social media, especially Youtube. The first anxious sheep starts bleating because the wind moves some leaves, and before you know it the whole flock are in a blind panic that the wolves are attacking! The whole AF issue has been grossly overstated IMO. From my limited point of view, I couldn't care less about improved AF. The big points for me are overall image quality, ease of use, an IBIS IBIS IBIS! Higher frames rates & rasters, plus improved low light and noise reduction would be great. The only other real "pain point" for me is having to use external ND filters because they are fiddly and get wet or dirty - but I think internal electronic ND seems unlikely at this point.

I am no "gear expert", but I'll play for fun :) 1) Small camera, handheld. Maybe GH4/5 or similar. Manual focus? 2) Graded in either Resolve or Final Cut. For me, it does have a full frame aesthetic, but the wide shots are very sharp (as intended?). The look and edit pacing are good.

Why not just shoot UHD 10 bit 60fps?

My half-baked "solution" to this is to adjust exposure using a variable ND filter. It works nicely in terms of being able to finely adjust the histogram and accurately eliminate the zebras wherever you wish. Clearly not a solution for all uses, however.

Likely, what you say is true... the answer is "it depends." On the subject, conditions, skill of videographer, etc. But this implies that when reviewing complex equipment used in a specific and limited way (the "test"), one should not be too confident in your own results, and should certainly not use melodramatic language like "it sucks." How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously? Now there appear to be other individuals on youtube supporting the "it sucks" position even though they don't even own the camera and haven't done any testing. That's really foolish.

For me it is not how it compares to other cameras so much as the contradictory reports saying GH5 AF "totally sucks" versus "works very well". Who is right? In the words of Mark Knopfler (singing)... "two men say the're Jesus... one of them must be wrong." I would like to know the TRUTH, preferably without a lot of juvenile blah, blah and posturing.

This post is incomplete and so a little misleading ... check here for what Paul Leeming actually said: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?353493-GH5-Owner-User-Reports/page4 Short version - he thinks Vlog on Gh5 is great. Extra stops. Ghosting issue found in ONE CASE with extreme use conditions.

This really is NOT the same as "truncating" to 8 bit and then re-inventing data to get 10 bit. More data really is there to begin with! David lays the math out neatly: 4, 8-bit values combine to make one 10 bit. Easy math isn't it? (256+256+256+256=1024). In other words you have 4 pixels each with a value between 0 and 255, which gives you 1024 possible combined values. I asked David Newman the same general question about downsampling earlier in the week and got this reply: "Very nicely, overkill even. 4:2:0 maps to an effective 4:4:4 with root-2 the image size. So 2.7k 4:2:0, is a nice 1920x1080 4:4:4 -- notice 2.7K is one of GoPro video modes partly for this reason." For those who don't know, David Newman is not just "some software guy from Gopro" - He invented the Cineform Codec and is clearly technically/mathematically gifted. I don't think the workflow needs to be complicated either. Set up your NLE with cineform codec installed (free from GOPRO) and then render an intermediate file with the correct resolution/luminance bits/colour sampling specified in the codec dialogue box. Looks to be a really good camera!