tweak

Occasionally I like to pretend video doesn't exist on EOSHD and I'm preparing a review of the Leica Q!
I really liked Mattias Burling's review
 
And this guy's, with some stunning shots in both...
I bought mine used for £3000. The prices new have gone up due to lack of stock.
But if you think of it as a £1500 lens and a £1500 body, in Leica terms that's cheap and with this you get very fast AF unlike on the 28mm F1.4 M
It is quite simply the best small full frame camera I've ever used
And what I find very interesting technologically about it is how much of a Panasonic trace there is in the camera, a clear collaboration and I think we'll be seeing more from Panasonic in the full frame market in due course (just a personal opinion).
I had the Sony RX1R II but I prefer the Q, which is saying a lot because the RX1R II is an amazing camera and has better specs on paper. The look of the 28mm F1.7 is drool-worthy wide open on the full frame Panasonic... I mean Leica... sensor.
The 24MP sensor in the Q has amazing colour, the lens is crazy sharp... You have a 35mm and 50mm crop mode, which works in video mode too.
I really wish it had 4K, 3K and 2K high quality video, as the cropping ability from the full frame sensor at 28mm gives you practically a 28-50mm F1.7 OIS zoom.
Firmware update please Leica!

The GH5 is a compact sedan with a ferrari engine in it but sometimes you need the whole ferrari. In this case, that means the features and form factor of a real video camera. Against Canon and Sony in the price range, this has dual native ISO, 5.7K sensor for both oversampling and eventually 5.7K raw, 2K up to 240fps, electronic stabilization, and a lighter body.
Having said that, the EF mount really kills the draw for Sony shooters who have been speedboosting or using PL. This is the single biggest drawback they could have easily avoided. 

Sandisk's speeds are very reliable.
Build quality not so much, I've had one fall apart

BMPCC + Vistascope 8mm Anamorphic Adapter. Color grade based on my BozBMDFilm to Rec709 LUT. Download the LUT here: https://bulentozdemirfilms.wordpress.com/downloads/bmcc-bmpcc-bozbmdfilm-to-rec709-lut/
 

MLRaw is RICH. I'm still shooting MLRaw for sure, but GH5 is another tool in my bag. For most gigs I shoot with the GH5 4K60p and 1080 120fps as it's a better tool, if I'm shooting something that needs the richest look I use MLRaw. It's like the Mayweather Vs McGreggor fight, the GH5 is a MMA fighter, it's never going to beat 14Bit raw in a fight of colour accuracy and richness... however, shooting with an ML hacked camera you can't even shoot 4K 60p or 120fps... there's no comparison to be made in that regard.

In summary I'm still pretty impressed by GH5s colours and DR, especially coming from GH4, I don't think anyone could be dissapointed with this camera unless they use AF a lot, something which I basically never use since I shoot mostly vintage glass and anamorphics. (I use GH5 with Metabones XL).

Wow, that time of the month again?
For anyone actually interested you can get a custom clamp from Raf made almost exactly the same as a Redstan for far less. You will also get good customer service and a better than 50/50 chance of it turning up. Just email him if you want details (email on website), he's a super helpful guy.

I was pretty sceptic about the GH5 at first, I ended up pulling the trigger on a good deal and I'm glad I did. Easily worth the money to me, the quality/spec is amazing for the price. I came from GH4/gx85. If you're doing paid jobs/ you're serious about video, then the GH5 will not disappoint. 

He's a good cheat sheet for DCP sizes
http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf
You should be able to make a custom sized timeline - if you don't want black bars in a box.
Also, if you've been looking at squeezed footage it can look a bit weird when you de-squeeze. But more importantly, as someone has mentioned, the stretch factor can change slightly, since the x2 is taken from when the lens is at infinity - this tends to be a real problem with x2 anamorphics rather than say x1.5 etc.
The best way to know what you've got is to film a circle (on a piece of paper) and then de-squeeze it to your taste.
Doesn't matter how you filmed it, 16:9, 4:3 or 6:5 - you'll still end up de-squeezing it by the same factor.

I was pretty sceptic about the GH5 at first, I ended up pulling the trigger on a good deal and I'm glad I did. Easily worth the money to me, the quality/spec is amazing for the price. I came from GH4/gx85. If you're doing paid jobs/ you're serious about video, then the GH5 will not disappoint. 

I think it's because of all the other shit it will do.

Yeah, no problem! This is a 30 second teaser. We're saving the actual trailer for much closer to the release date. This film was shot on a GH4, by the way.
 

I'd like to wait a bit and try to sell it as a package. If that doesn't work, I'll consider selling hardcore dna separately.

believe me i know. I've been doing exactly that for years. i understand the advantages and disadvantages. full frame is fun and I enjoy shooting in it, but in this case, I *want* a super35 (1.5x) sensor digital cinema camera to shoot films with. I want that because that's the standard I'm used to for motion pictures. besides, I don't like using a focal reducer with my vintage lenses because they exacerbate blooming, CA, and soft corners for apertures wider than f/2.8, which negates the advantage of the metabones' extra stop, or more. fortunately, I won't need that extra stop with a native 2500 ISO (providing it's just as clean as 800 which we have yet to see from the EVA1). and last, I have the 5D3/MLRAW option for when I want the full frame look (which I'm also a fan of for the right project).
side note: I used to own a good bit of MFT lenses when I was an AF100 and then GH4 owner. always found them a little too small to operate with my big bear paws.  the contax zeiss I'm using now look f***ing amazing and suit me better.
I appreciate what your saying. just offering a different pov. 
yes, two actually. and the latest is finally getting a release date for late this year or early next. in talks now with the distributor.

7D

I think what people fail to realise here is that for most people using MF lenses (or any vintage lens) I'm sure has nothing to do with whether you can get other "equivalent" lenses to match or do an "equivalent" job... it's all about the things that aren't supposed to be there, the "mistakes" if you will that make the image interesting. It's like playing music, jazz as an example, the notes you don't play and the unexpected notes you do play make what you are doing interesting to some people. If you just played a super predictable structured melody I don't know many musicians personally who would be overly impressed...
That being said not everyone may enjoy what you are doing (they never will in life) but if something has worth and merit to you don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I will give you the big secret, everything you do in your day to day life is pointless, in fact life is pointless. There's no plan waiting for you at the end, no one there to pat you on the back and tell you did life right. Just do what makes you happy and help others where you can  .

This "on the go" thing is un-watchable... back to the drawing board guys.

Most people say it's not really worth it for video, more for stills.

Just zoom in a little if it does... I don't see an issue here. It covers FF sensor at 14mm.

ISO100 is the minimum ISO on Canon cameras. Anything below is digitally pulled from ISO100. Long time ago before raw recording these values gave you better roll-off in the highlight when you recorded in h264. 
With raw recording only analog gain levels are valid. So 100/200/400/800/1600/(3200) anything in between or higher are digital ISO values. if you put the files in davinci resolve they have the same "brightness" as the analog ISO which used as a source to push or pull. So there are no magic if you are trying to use ISO160/640/1250 which were the magical low noise ISO values before the raw era.

Sorry I posted in the wrong topic forum,please ignore......

It has a slow write speed, so anything in decent resolutions will never be continuous. It's possible you could do 48fps for a short time until the buffer fills, but I think it will also be squished if it is possible, so you will have to resize in post (like anamorphic lens). Likely as well that the Liveview will not display correctly.

From experience I'd recommend not bothering with an EOS M. I've had a few and I think if you want to do Raw it's really not worth the hassle. Look around for a cheap 7D, that's kind of the best cheap camera you can get for Raw and make some good results/ workflow.

That's true. A few of the better people I know don't know much about the tech either because that's not what they are into.
But... I will say that when I see these people and work with them I often teach them many things to help them produce better work and some of the best work they produce is when I (or someone else) is shooting and they are meerly editing the stuff. Different people are good at different things, that's life.

My lut is specifically designed to emulate the colour offered by Magic Lantern RAW, debayered by ACR, with the Cinelog DCP profile applied. The Panasonic lut is not.

I'm under the impression 10bit raw doesn't really work 100% properly from my tests with Eosm (also 7D). Not to mention the benefits of Raw are much more apparent at a minimum of 12bit on theses cams, if I was going to shoot 10bit I'd just buy a different camera (almost any panasonic 4K cam and down sample to 1080). 

I've used eosM quite a bit for 14bit raw, but I got really sick of the focus pixels and the extra hassle of getting rid of them. That new app for Mac cuts down the process, but still you're pretty limited with it. 

For me 7D is truly the cutoff point, any less quality than that and I can't be bothered with it, unless I was doing an 8mm emulation video or something.