kidzrevil

I rebought the 28mm 2.8 and I love how sharp it is on the G7 with focal reducer:

2.8

5.6
I'm loving this lens too. It's a little soft wide open (almost looks like you have a light pro mist or something) but not bad. This is a video I just shot on the G7 with the RMC Tokina 17mm 3.5 + focal reducer:
It's shot at mostly 5.6 until the slow motion shots. The rest is wide open.

That first video does not look particularly "cinematic" to my eyes. Many blown highlights, underexposed subjects and poor framing. I'm going to replace the word "cinematic" with what it really means... "good cinematography", that is to say, shot by someone who understands the art of cinematography... which is defined as the art of making motion pictures. There is no camera setting at normal playback speed that will do this for you. Light you subjects, compose your shots, have purpose to your camera movements. All should support your story. 
The second video is again mostly all slow motion, save for one scene that last only a couple of seconds. 
The title is correct... the GH5 can look quite cinematic... but as we have seen demonstrated time and time again... so can a smartphone. But only if the shooter understands the art of cinematography. At this point in the game it's not the cameras that are lacking, it's the users. 

The audience shifts over time and keeps evolving with the site. NFS have written pretty much nothing but articles designed to reel in clicks so their audience has shifted to the lowest common denominator of people. It's what you get if you have to pay for your visitors or entice them with headlines, rather than building a community around real content and real filmmakers / enthusiasts.
The people left online overall are the same as ever, not just trolls but real people - pros and artists still use the internet, they have not gone away! It's just that maybe they don't want to read or engage with a shit website. The problem is that there are too many shit websites around and it's hurting the internet generally. Most sites are completely under the spell of clickbate and bad content for hits and ad revenue... I have completely lost faith in pretty much all of the photographic / video sites to be honest.

Some of the nicest, lowlight G85 footage I've seen. Nice job. 

So today I received the Nikon mount Vivitar 28mm f2. I'm using it on my Metabones Speed Booster on the Panasonic G80.
Bought it for £80. So far I'm really surprised by the quality. I expected loads of softness and flaring but I'm getting neither. I'm almost disappointed! Nice character to the bokeh though.
Sorry just a boring plant shot from my back garden. Haven't had a chance to test it anywhere else yet. Tomorrow I'm going to a bbq so will be able to test it out better then.
 

Two unforeseen downsides to the lens are its long focus throw (about 270 degrees) and the front element rotates with the focus. It is otherwise very well made and really quite small!

B&H carries screw on Tiffen Black Satin filters.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/search?N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search&Ntt=Black Satin filter

You'll see the main differences in scenes with lots of movement and/or lots of fine detail - use of a low compression codec results in far fewer motion artefacts, better cadence and less smearing of detail. You'll also - as you surmised - have a lot more flexibility in post and be able to place much more extreme grades (should you need to) on the output. You'll also be able to do much higher quality green screen, if that's your bag.

Well apart from those two annoyances I'm actually really impressed with the camera and the image. I can see me carrying on using this for some time!

An XL Nikon to M4/3 speedbooster... no vignetting even on s35 mm lenses with a GH5 with IBIS on...though I don't move my camera much. 

Your client probably wont see the difference if its only viewed on youtube. 

Yeah they where cool for my dog as well.
 

Those shots look really nice!
I've been on the fence for so long about completing my ai-s set, but it was the short focus throw that was putting me off. However, if the non-ai lenses have a longer focus throw & by the looks of your shots, think I might be going in this direction - longer focus throw will be useful for some of the anamorphics i've got.
The only other consideration might be to go the Medium Format lens route & I've been really impressed by some of these lenses recently - anyone have experience with MF lenses? (Looking for budget conscious lenses btw)

Stop making me want these lenses.

Yeah the 50mm f/2 is a special lens. So sharp. Love the look of that 85mm in the first shot. 

Yeah all Nikkor lenses are pretty sweet. I recently bought the 35mm 1.4 and it is crazy good with ML Raw...
 



I think I still have the pre ai 50mm f2... I think I have both the scalloped and the later K version. I'll have to give them a try on the 5D3. Right now I am in the middle of shooting a short with EF lenses, but my next project will be all Nikkor lenses, so your shots are a good reminder to be on the lookout for some good deals. I also used to have the 35-70mm f/3.5 and that was a really nice zoom. It would probably be great speedboosted on the G85. And do you have, or did you have, the ai-s 50mm 1.2? I know a lot of people don't like that lens because it's soft wide open, but I love that dreamy look. 

The way the contrast detect based AF on the GH5 works is by cranking the sensor to frame rates of 240fps, maybe even higher, and very CPU intensive analysing of bokeh and depth of field (DFD mode).
So you can't expect AF to be as fast at 24p in video mode as it is in stills mode.
What Panasonic need to do is get Dual Pixel AF technology on the sensor.
It is the only reliable way of doing good AF for filmmakers. The phase-detect A6500 route is a dead-end, it's just not bomb proof enough. It hardly ever tracks reliably, especially in low light.
Meanwhile good old manual focus has resulted in many classic films, so I suggest we stop being so lazy and use that instead

His overall point wasn't "pixels don't matter," it was that people place way too much attention on K count than on all the other aspects that make up an image. You have to admit, the difference in the 4K master when downscaled from 6K and upscaled from 2K was not very different at all! Noticeable? Yes. But would the 2K master really get in the way of great story telling? Hell no!
That last statement of yours ("the truth is 4K is still better than 2K) is kinda the whole reason he put this video together: "We shot with cameras that range from 3K to 11K, and the highest actual resolving power is in the middle of that range at 6K. The 3K camera is better than some of the 6Ks, and one of the 6Ks is better than the 11K.  You just can’t tell what you’re going to get based on counting Ks."
 

I know of one or two DPs who own expensive kits like that. Reds or Alexas. It worked for them, they got work from bundling the camera in with the deal, and they gradually paid the camera off. But the majority of people I know who are working consistently and supporting themselves well don't own any camera except something like a t2i for personal use. Partially because different cameras are better for different shoots, mostly because they're getting hired for their ability and not their gear. Yes, if you're being hired mostly for bundling a cheap rental then that cheap rental will open doors to you... but only with bad shitty clients. So yeah, it will open doors for sure... imo, the wrong ones. Most commercial sets cost $250k/day. Lower end shoots still cost five figures a day. Is saving a few hundred dollars on a camera rental really that important to anyone but the most miserly client? Is the most miserly client the one you want?
There is a middle ground of C300 and FS7 ops who work as wet hires for lower rates ($600-$800/day wet hire, maybe a lot more but that seems to be the agreed upon low end) and seem to do REALLY well because they get tons of work for mostly documentary style stuff, tv and web. Usually they can pay off their small camera ($20k investment rather than $200k investment) in the first six months while still making money and after that it's just gravy. Talent helps there but all you need to be able to do is operate competently and reliably. But when it comes to Alexas and Epics... I rarely see owner/ops unless they own their own production company or are independently wealthy or just crazy ambitious. The cost of the crew to support those cameras is thousands of dollars a day, anyway, so most cheap professional clients don't want the hassle. A lot of student films do, though, and if you're in a city with a lot of film schools you can do okay just with that since you can recruit a free crew of film students and still ask a decent rate for yourself.
In my experience the most important thing is who you know. You want to know people who are looking for DPs. You also have to be able to do the job reliably. That's about it.
I've witnessed a number of DP hiring decisions and it's usually just who's easiest to work with. What camera someone owns almost never matters at all. Having a good reel of course is very helpful.
Edit: for narrative specifically I can see having a higher end camera being a strong selling point. For breaking into indie films (where rates are low but passion is high) having a good camera could be a significant factor.

I've recently started applying to freelance Director of Photography jobs, but one thought has been nagging me: do people take you less seriously if all you have is a cheap DSLR or Mirrorless camera? I feel like my reel, which is all BMPCC, Sony a6300 and even some T2i, should speak for itself, but a lot of jobs I see posted on Mandy and elsewhere demand Red, or Alexa (I never even see a mention of Blackmagic). I think these are producers or directors who are hiring a DP because they don't own equipment, and possibly don't know anything about cameras other than Red and Arri because they're "the industry standard". I understand some people just want "the best" and so they look to what Hollywood and Indywood are using. I understand why they would want to use the big fancy expensive cinema cameras. I know I can get great results with any camera I use--I've proven that to myself with all of this buying, trying and selling cameras I've done for the past year+, but I wonder if I could just be disregarded entirely when I say I have what are basically cheap mid-range cameras. To any DPs here working on narrative films, have you ever been passed up for not owning a Red or some sort of expensive fucking camera? Or do you get work based on the strength of your reel and convince the producers or whomever to shoot on whatever you want because you're the DP and you're in charge of that department? Do you have to have the strong reel AND the expensive equipment? Do you feel like the fancy camera opens more doors? Or is it just as competitive no matter what you own and how good your reel is?

I totally agree. In a weird way, the limitations excite me. I'm even considering a GH1 or GH2 purchase  just so I can be forced to produce something within some confines. In the end none of this matters and some kid is going to make the next best indie film in an iPhone, so shoot with what you have and make the best of it. Now I won't sell my 5D3, but I do like the challenge of shooting something with a 6-7 year old camera.

I think these GH1 and GH2 pioneers put a lot of art and craft into the creation of every frame.
Like going by Tony Zhous motto "every frame a painting", they have been following the route "every frame a stills photograph".
Check out Michael Mills´s GH2 pieces and vignettes of art. Quality ratio of GH2 and GH1 and 5DII on vimeo is very high.
 
 

It's funny, I spent a good portion of yesterday watching old hacked GH1/GH2 videos and it's amazing how close these manufacturers were to perfect FHD and then just abandoned it for 4K... some of which is still kind of thin and brittle. I agree the downscaling does help to create better 1080p, but I often wonder if that wouldn't be better done in camera like the C100. I'm no tech guru, so I'll leave the intricacies up to others, but I am curious why video from a GH1 looks better, to me, than the video from a modern 4K camera?

Although I'm not in the market for a GH5, there are some used ones for sale at BH if you want to save two to four hundred dollars... depending on condition. 

I shot another video with the GH5 and SLR Magic 50mm 2x anamorphic prime. Calling it Chicago II. Here is one frame that is my favorite.