Mat Mayer

Yes couldn't really comment on the rumours after signing an NDA - but most of all didn't want to drive traffic to the scumbags at 43rumors
The leaks this time were ridiculous. Needs to stop!
What is the point of having a nice surprise and big in-depth article when you already know everything from some shitty clickbait place that dribbles stuff out over months?

Thanks Jon.
I have been enjoying the 16 for casual photos but it is a bit big, so your vouch bodes well for saving it for video. It is certainly an improvement over my PL15mm, I just haven't been sure about the weight difference yet. I rock the Sigma 60mm f2.8 and am so happy with it that I dont think I need the better 75mm. Took a stupid amount of photos with the 60 today, as always. It gets great scores on DXO and has good DOF, plus it feels as good to me as the 1.4 Sigmas. At 3m away the f2.8 DOF is 20mm so it seems like the 75mm at f1.8 would usually be too thin DOF (for me).

The 60mm f2.8 is one of the best value for money lenses out there. 

Yey, just scored a very cheap Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM (Leica M39 screw mount).
Will give it a go on Leica M8, Fuji X-T20 and Sony A7. Maybe the Panasonic GM1 as well if I can find the adapter.
That is all for now.

Thanks Jon.
I have been enjoying the 16 for casual photos but it is a bit big, so your vouch bodes well for saving it for video. It is certainly an improvement over my PL15mm, I just haven't been sure about the weight difference yet. I rock the Sigma 60mm f2.8 and am so happy with it that I dont think I need the better 75mm. Took a stupid amount of photos with the 60 today, as always. It gets great scores on DXO and has good DOF, plus it feels as good to me as the 1.4 Sigmas. At 3m away the f2.8 DOF is 20mm so it seems like the 75mm at f1.8 would usually be too thin DOF (for me).

Interesting stuff Jon. I would like to see your top 5 M43 lenses in order, or best of '17. Curious to see how all my M43 Sigma's stack up (probably mainly because I haven't had enough time with the Sigma 16 yet with it being Xmas.) Ignore the idots who feel the need to shit on other's equipment because it doesn't fit in with their blinkered view of what M43 should be. And the 4Kaphobes (not idiots).
Festive greetings 

I wanted to get one but in the end, without focus peaking... it wasn’t worth the price to me.

Original Zlog DCI 4K clip available for download. See for yourself how it grades.
 

Extreme high-contrast setting: Zlog-graded DCI test video:
 

DCI 4K graded zlog:
 
True 24.00 fps. Lumix 14-140mm lens.

The comparison that is relevant is the video I posted above using the GH4 and the Z with the same lens under dim, not low light. The Z colors are more accurate and the shots are less noisy. Comment on that, especially after downloading the original I uploaded. I agree that the sensor is not the only thing that counts, obviously. And i am not arguing the Z is the better camera, but the comparison video suggests at a minium no worse image for the Z, if not better.

Hey Jon, that lens gives a perspective and interesting look. I had to give it a try and downloaded the 2k stream and did a grade. It´s a very modern look. I would rent it thanks to your review. Thank you! A good mix of talking and show footage.

 

Its a gorgeous lens to use and hold. But I think it is a bit overrated because it is so well made, with the aperture ring (which I always use).
I am expecting the Sigma to blow it away and will be happy to sell it as I have an alternative compact solution for photos (Ricoh GR). The 15 isnt bad, it is better than the sharp Panny 20mm and the other primes in similar ranges,  but it doesn't have the magic that the Sigma 30 1.4 has.
For maximum IQ the Sigma will almost certainly win in the corners and edges at wide apertures. Hopefully there will be some comparison reviews for confirmation. Jon saying it is like a longer PL12 is a massive indicator that it will be a big step up. Like when someone posted a yoga video in this thread and switched from the PL15 to the PL12 half way though. The difference was very noticeable.

Can't wait. 

Turns out the 7artisans 50mm Im testing has a bit of the sought after soap bubble bokeh thing going on.

The 30mm has a firmware update you should install to fix distortion. Information at following link, I cant find the actual download link at the moment (they dont make it easy to find). The 16 will certainly need help with distortion and won't affect my decision. Looks like there was also a 30 firmware update for focusing with Olympus camera/s. I will just wait for a review or two before buying the 16mm with the 2.8 19mm reviewing much lower than the longer lenses.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/notice-to-30mm-dc-dn-micro-fourthirds-users/

If you select Rec Quality MP4 HEVC ("TV or recorder that supports hybrid log gamma is required") on the GH5, then the available options become 4K 72M 30p and 4K 72M 24p. 
This is different from selecting Hybrid Log Gamma as a photostyle and using the 400M all-i codec, but it still counts as "4K HDR recording"

It's a taste thing, right, trading color saturation for greater dynamic range.  We certainly wouldn't want HDR if it did that because people who favor saturation over DR would then be left with inferior images.  We need both.  When I say "saturation" (and maybe someone can give me a better term) I mean the amount of color information we need to discern all colors within the display gamut.  Banding is the clearest example of what I mean.  As I mentioned elsewhere, if you display, say 20 colors (saturation) of yellow on an 8-bit, 6DR gamut display, you will see banding, because your eye can tell the difference.  Here are some examples I created.  
The first is all 255 shades of green an 8bit image, which should render "bandless" on a 6DR screen

I can already see some banding, which tells me that the website might re-compresses images at a lower bit-depth.
Here's a version where 18% of the colors are removed, let's call it 7-bit

And now for 32% removed, call it 6-bit

The less colors (saturation information) there is, the more our eye/brains detect a difference in the scene.  HOWEVER, what the above examples show is that we don't really need even 8bits to get good images out of our current display gamuts.  Most people probably wouldn't notice the difference if we were standardized on 6bit video. But that's a whole other story   
How does this relate to HDR?  The more you shrink the gamut (more contrast-y) the less difference you see between the colors, right?  In a very high contrast scene, a sky will just appear solid blue of one color.  It's as we increase the gamut that we can see the gradations of blue.   That is, there must always be enough bit-depth to fill the maximum gamut.  
For HDR to work for me, and you it sounds like (I believe we have the same tastes), it needs the bit-depth to keep up with the expansion in gamut.  So doing some quick stupid math (someone can fix I hope), let's say that for every stop of DR we need 42 shades of any given color (255/6 DR).  That's what we have in 8bit currently, I believe.  Therefore, every extra stop of DR will require 297 (255+42) shades in each color channel, or 297*297*297 = 26,198,073.  
In 10bits, we can represent 1,024 shades, so roughly, 10-bit should give us another 24 stops of DR; that is, with 10bit, we should be able to show "bandless" color on a screen with 14 (even 20+) stops of DR.
What I think it comes down to is better video is not a matter of improved bit-depth (10bit), or CODECs, etc., it's a matter of display technology.  I suspect that when one sees good HDR it's not the video tech that's giving a better image, it's just the display's ability to show deeper blacks, or more subtle DR.  That's why I believe someone's comment about the GH5 being plenty good enough to make HDR makes sense (though I'd extend it to most cameras).  
Anyway, I hope this articulates what I mean about color saturation.  The other thing I must point out, that though I've argued that 10bit is suitable for HDR theoretically, I still believe one needs RAW source material to get a good image in non-studio environments.
And finally, to answer the OP.  I don't believe you need any special equipment for future HDR content.  You, don't even need a full 8bits to render watchable video today.  My guess is that any 8bit video graded to an HDR gamut will look just fine to 95% of the public.  They may be able to notice the improvement in DR even though they're losing color information because again, in video, we seldom look at gradient skies.  For my tastes, however, I will probably complain  because LOG will still look like crap to me, even in HDR, in many situations   10bit?  Well, we'll just have to see!
 

I just got back from the store where I specifically went to put the 25 1.2 on to see if I would be able to use the similarly weighted Sigma 16 as a walk around lens. The weight is too much for me, so will have to try and justify keeping the PL15 too.
I tried the snap focus [edit: I think this is the wrong term,  it's the same focus pull back action as on the Oly 17mm 1.8], for the first time, which was nice. The build quality is great. Autofocus didnt seem much faster (if at all) than the Oly 25 1.8, which is already excellent. The bokeh is absolutely bananas, amazing. I think the only reason I would get the 25 or 45 is if I did portraits or weddings, for the bokeh. 
I agree with Jon's video that the Oly 25 is not worth 3-4 times the price of the Sigma 30. I am fully happy with the Sigma and always amazed by the images it produces and light gathering. It sounds like Sigma made the PL12 and possibly had a hand in the Oly 25 PRO (apparently they certainly designed the Oly 75mm which was the king for a while), which is great for those who need those premium features, plus reassuring for Sigma fans that they are making the best lenses as well as amazing affordable ones. I hope after they make the 50 that they attempt to make something along the lines of the 18-35mm f1.8, because at the moment Sigma is the most exciting thing in M43, now that the GH5 dust has settled.

I just got back from the store where I specifically went to put the 25 1.2 on to see if I would be able to use the similarly weighted Sigma 16 as a walk around lens. The weight is too much for me, so will have to try and justify keeping the PL15 too.
I tried the snap focus [edit: I think this is the wrong term,  it's the same focus pull back action as on the Oly 17mm 1.8], for the first time, which was nice. The build quality is great. Autofocus didnt seem much faster (if at all) than the Oly 25 1.8, which is already excellent. The bokeh is absolutely bananas, amazing. I think the only reason I would get the 25 or 45 is if I did portraits or weddings, for the bokeh. 
I agree with Jon's video that the Oly 25 is not worth 3-4 times the price of the Sigma 30. I am fully happy with the Sigma and always amazed by the images it produces and light gathering. It sounds like Sigma made the PL12 and possibly had a hand in the Oly 25 PRO (apparently they certainly designed the Oly 75mm which was the king for a while), which is great for those who need those premium features, plus reassuring for Sigma fans that they are making the best lenses as well as amazing affordable ones. I hope after they make the 50 that they attempt to make something along the lines of the 18-35mm f1.8, because at the moment Sigma is the most exciting thing in M43, now that the GH5 dust has settled.

Olympus releases some f/1.2 range overview videos:
 
 
I get if you're not into talk about 'feathered bokeh' or making babies pose a certain way... in which case here's something for everyone, I always love interviews with Kazuto Yamaki and this is a more recent one:
 

The 16mm Sigma will be 405g, just under the Oly 25 1.2 at 410g, which is quite an increase from the 265g of the 30. But as long as the image quality is on a similar level to the 30, it will be a must-buy. It has a bit of weather sealing too which is nice.

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.
Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a
Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely  ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  
In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.
What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  
I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another
And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.
I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  
On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

The PanaLeica 15mm isn't too expensive considering it is an above average quality prime. The design is lovely. I haven't really appreciated a lens design before this, so I think whoever made it at least had Leica in mind. I love having the aperture ring. Lost the Leica cap yesterday in a taxi. Maybe I will look for a Sigma one to replace it