j_one

In case you are wondering how Z6 III behaves in low light I made this short clip  where I tested the camera and some of it’s functions. No plot, just random B-roll clips taken  between climbing, before or after sunset, during September and October, including labels which clip is N-RAW and which just N-Log. There’s even one S5ii V-Log clip for comparison. Darkest clips are taken with ISO 6400 and 12800 on Nikkor 85mm F1.8 or 50mm F1.2. Just mute the sound as it’s mostly sea waves splashing near a highway. 
 

The Realtime LUTs on the M43/Lumix cameras are worth it for that feature alone. Some of the ones by Nick Driftwood are amazing but I'm also having a lot of fun tweaking the image to my taste.
With the update to the Metabones to work with phase detection, it's brought new life to the Sigma 18-35 (which I had sold and now re-bought). This is for when I need to work in lowlight. Otherwise, I much prefer running around with my 15mm f1,7 , 25mm f1.4 and 42.5 f1.7 primes. So easy to carry around. I have the Sony A7iv as well but the G9ii is a much more fun camera to use.

The problem with LOG is first of all that the gamma assists are a bit rubbish.
(Aside from the Panasonic S9 and cameras where you can load on a LUT and monitor with it, without resorting to some shitty external monitor)
But on the more common and better specced cameras you can't do that...
Nikon Z9, Z8, Sony a1, a7 IV, GFX 100, Z6 III, EOS R6 II and so on.
Secondly you should never really shoot it WITHOUT a gamma assist.
Contrast, tonality and light are a really important judgement in cinematography and you can't really see any of that with a very flat display.
Sure you can toggle LOG profile on/off quick in the menu and judge... but doing so is a PITA every time you want to see the real contrast and lighting.
The gamma assists are all quite bland looking and flat with not very much pop, I find.
Then we come to the LOG profiles themselves...
EOS R6 Mark II / R5 / R3 all have C-LOG3, which a lot of people complain about but I don't mind. One of the better ones and easier to grade. C-LOG2 is reserved for the Cinema EOS line. C-LOG3 is closer to the original C-LOG on the 1D C, I seem to remember.
Sony a7 IV has S-LOG2 and S-LOG3, they offer the widest dynamic range of the bunch but you still have to get exposure perfect for optimal image quality. Gets noisy really fast if you under expose.
N-LOG on the Nikon cameras needs the most colour correction, otherwise you have very green-olive skin.
By the way, there is a very small difference in image quality between 50Mbit/s 10bit 420 H265 on the Sony a7 IV and the higher bitrate LOG formats in range of 200-500Mbit... yes even in S-LOG3!
So you can save a lot of money and card space there.
With standard gamma picture profiles you don't need to shoot 10bit... 8bit will look the same.
People tend to overestimate higher numbers on the specs sheet.
So those tips in summary:
Don't shoot from a flat image off the back screen Nail exposure to get the maximum dynamic range benefit from LOG With modern codecs like H.265 in 4K/24p - don't bother with the higher bitrates in most cases, the laws of diminishing returns apply big time (Although if you're shooting 8K or high frame rates then 200-500Mbit/s is recommended) C-LOG3 is easiest to handle, with N-LOG last Hope that in-camera LUTs/monitoring becomes a common thing, it's really bad that it isn't even 12 years since LOG first came on the mirrorless camera scene.

Okay. I heard some early reports of compatibility/profile issues for the Sidus One with non-aputure fixtures, and I have CRMX lights from Godox and Astera too. I've been eyeing Sidus one since Aputure support is strong. Most affordable option is Godox TRX Timolink but I dunno how it will play with non-Godox lights AND outside the Knowled app, let alone reliability/range as a transmitter. I may just play it safe with the Moonlite...if you have any more thoughts do let me know!!
Anyway my favorite aspect of these sales is how vendors push down the prices of used units accordingly. Happy shopping everyone!

I'm not yet, but I don't want to have multiple apps for my lights on set so I mostly buy Aputure/Amaran.  I'm interested in being able to integrate some other vendors, though, without having to constantly reconnect all day.  Since I have some Aputure gear that only supports Sidus link, Sidus One seems like a good path forward to getting lights from other vendors (among other things, while I like my B7C's, there have been two occasions when they wouldn't fit in a light fixture - Astera makes some that would have fit).

Pinned topic, keep it going 🙂 The internet how it should be.

Based on focal length alone, I'd rather have 18-40. No idea about optical quality, but I've often found 28mm to be too long for landscapes, and it's pretty easy to crop if I need a 50mm FOV.
However I'm also going to make a guess that the R8 is more comfortable to hold. I don't particularly like the grip shape on the S5 series. I miss handling the NX1.

Neither cinema and photography are well suited to a small screen and even smaller attention spans, they are supposed to be viewed on a large canvas and in a socially interactive way like in a gallery or theatre. Now with stuff like streaming, this works fine when everyone has a subscription to one or two of the same platforms like Netflix and are stuck at home with nothing better to do like during covid, but after a while there is a total oversupply of stuff to watch, and a total ADHD mess of an audience who is getting constantly distracted by social media content in direct competition to the long form stuff.
 
High quality displays are now higher quality and more affordable than ever, so it's easy to view video content in high quality and on a fairly large surface - people aren't limited to viewing on smartphones if they make the time to sit down for a bit. For it to be a socially interactive viewing experience, that really requires people to gather in the same place at the same time, and that probably requires a scarcity of content. If content is viewable at any time anywhere, then people don't bother to join others to watch it. There used to be a huge scarcity of content and people would sometimes struggle to find things to do on their free time, and this lead to (in-person) social activities being more relevant a part of life than today where one can just entertain oneself at any time with a mobile phone. This state of affairs leads to people not being able to focus on what they should be doing and also it seems to be leading to significantly reduced birth rates in the developed world. So, will a humankind which is too connected to each other lead it to extinction, or will there be a corrective move? Probably fewer humans would be better for the planet's ecosystems, but then this would also likely mean the current level of technology (or technology development) is difficult to sustain because (in the future) there is not enough volume to pay for the costs.

Confirmed: So it's S5D, S9 firmware, and S5ii/x firmware.

...Tired of waiting. Literally just want the S1H and S1R with some refresh features from the s5ii. I've been thinking of going full nikon Z + sony E for the system I grow into.

I think Lumix is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think we only have to look back to the GH6 to see why they may be holding back. Just months after releasing it they then released the G9 II with PDAF. Within a year they'd go on to release a GH7 with PDAF. With hindsight it feels as though the GH6 was rushed out.
I think Panasonic might be in a similar situation with their higher end offerings.
I hope that Lumix works towards improving their marketing and becoming more transparent with the photo/video community. When you're that far behind the other companies there really isn't a reason not to be. Even if you cannot be specific, letting it be known that you're not abandoning higher end users would probably help. 

No, I do not agree.
Regardless of what is said between the alps, it is a fact that they have not renewed their flagship FF models for more than 5 years. And it doesn't matter that the ones we have are very good. That's the market, baby! That's the rules, right or wrong, and if Pana doesn't follow them they get written off.
Unless Lumix is a secret cult or has a history like Leica.
No, it doesn't have both.
In the next few weeks Sony will make a big announcement. By the time (perhaps) Pana unveils these damn S1M2s, its direct competitors will have completed two iterations of their models.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should follow trends but let's connect the dots: if Pana wants to be in the market and have access to the latest technology in sensors and microchips they have to have the minimum numbers. Having the sufficient numbers is not just to make money but mainly to be able to afford to have a custom sensor designed or access to fewer nanometer (advanced) chips. Otherwise they are cut off.
And when the numbers are what we were quoting just few post before, they are on the edge of extinction. 
Imagine that in 2025 Pana sells 260K cameras while retaining 2023 numbers. How many will be S1HIIs? I mena with a new sensor? That is, how many custom sensors can you ask a supplier for? Maybe too few and you have to choose from the catalog.

It is fun fun fun times, both my main career (filmmaking) and my backup / previous career (i.e. the CS/IT world) are going through very rough patches right now. 
Want to go back to how it was a couple of years ago when I could be working 100hr weeks if I wished (& I did!). 

So I went with the A7R III of course 🙂
The reasoning goes like this... It was 1160 euros, and the A7 IV would have been 1750. Quite a big difference.
The A7R III is a 2018 camera, and in those first EOSHD reviews it remember feeling it was a big step up from the already very good A7R II, because Sony had introduced new ergonomics, new battery, new colour science... And now they have done so again 6 years later, and the a7 IV of course has completely new Creative Styles and menus... plus 10bit and S-Cinetone, which you'd think I would consider a must-have. Thing is I don't. The new menus aren't a selling point, they're a bit of a mess. The new colour profiles are pretty decent, but I am more used to maximising what you can get out of the old ones with EOSHD Pro Color. And the A7r III when set up right has some serious mojo... Maybe a bit of a harsher highlight roll off than the A7 iv, and it doesn't grade as well in S-LOG3, but there is a part of me that doesn't care and just wants to shoot.
I tested both side by side for about an hour in the shop, sat down around a table... The a7r III autofocus was as good as I remember it... Can't really see any major improvement on the a7 IV. I tried the Clear Image zoom for Super 16mm c-mount lenses and the Super 35mm mode on the a7r III and again there was no shortcoming, and no clear advantage for the a7 IV. That's quite an important feature for me as I like the look of my c-mount stuff.
When it comes to 10bit and more dynamic range I have the GFX 100 and S1H. When I need really good AF in video mode and stills - the a7r III does the job admirably. My a7r III will be mainly for personal stuff, stills and video - with emphasis actually more on stills whereas the S1H takes up some video duties.
The video mode on the a7r III really is no slouch... I find the image really very nice in 4K full frame and S35. It also has 1080/120fps which is a nice bonus for such an aging model.
The a7r III also has a small edge over the a7 IV in low light, in both video and stills, even thought it has a higher megapixel count (42 vs 33) and is 6 years older... quite surprising.
Ergonomics wise, the a7r III is smaller, slimmer, and has an equally good EVF - you don't notice the higher res panel in the A7 IV very much as the resolution of the live-view feed doesn't quite make use of it.
So I feel good about saving the 500-600, and will one day get back into the modern Sony cameras... but for now the a7r iii does the job perfectly fine. I'd like to get an a1 again one day... When it comes down under 2.5k then I will strike. It's hard to see how they will ever better it, without a complete change in concept and technology.
By the way, I really do prefer the tilt screen on the a7r III over the social media friendly twizzle screens of late. The a7 IV just didn't feel as good to shoot with somehow, when the screen is opened up at the side off axis.
There's also no advantage in RAW quality for stills.
I appreciate the image in video mode is that bit better... A bit more dynamic range in the creative styles, a better codec, and S-Cinetone is nice to have as well.
So a pure videographer's needs may differ and that extra 600 might be worth spending.
Let's see if I regret the decision by this time next week 🙂

Not clickbait, despite sounding like it.   I'd say that it threw a spanner in the works, but it was more like a hand-grenade.
I went to South Korea on holiday, and despite having a mostly-sorted setup based on GX85, I took the BMMCC and ended up shooting almost the whole trip on it.
The rig


The rig consists of:
OG BMMCC - the 1080p one from almost a decade ago 12-35mm F2.8 lens IR/UV cut filter cheap vND filter (tried to buy a new one there but retail shops didn't stock what I wanted) Ikan 3.5" monitor Smallrig monitor mount (tilts forwards) curly HDMI cable from amazon (really tidies the rig up) 3 x LP-E6 batteries (two are older Wasabi ones and one was genuine a Canon one I bought there) Peak Design arca-swiss (mounted on the bottom) random wrist strap (looped through the arca-swiss plate Sandisk 128Gb SD card This ended up being a killer setup.  A few highlights of the rigs performance are...
Professional equipment
The BMMCC is a cinema camera with fans and designed to shoot in harsh environments.  The 12-35 is a professional lens.  No BS overheating snowflake influencer crap here.  This gave me confidence to use it in (light) rain, heavy humidity and serious sweatiness, and basically to not baby it.
Fixed aperture zoom lens
When setting up for a shot the vND setting from the last shot is probably in the ballpark for this current shot, even when going straight from a one end of the zoom range to the other.
Flexible zoom range
The zoom range was from 30mm to about 100mm.  Sometimes it wasn't quite as wide as I'd have liked, but it suited the environment as Seoul, with a population of around 10M people, is one of the worlds megacities and is seriously compact, so most compositions would simply contain too much stuff if they had a wider FOV.  You always miss shots when travelling, but I felt like I didn't miss that many.
OIS on a cinema camera, even at the wide end
Not a lot of OIS options for 12mm lenses outside of zoom lenses.
Light weight
This is a full cinema camera rig with 12 items, and yet weighs about 850g / 1.9lb.  My GH5 weighs 750g / 1.65lb with battery and SD card, BUT NO LENS.
Dynamic range
No choosing between the sky or shadows.  When shooting uncontrolled situations like this you often see things in post that you didn't see while you were shooting, so the flexibility is super-useful.
Ok, so that's all lovely and all, but what was so transformative about it?  These are things you could probably work out from the specs...
 
Grenade #1: Shooting slowly is (mostly) shooting honestly.
It's a cinema camera, so it's slow as f to shoot with.  Yes, I know that practice makes you faster, but my phone will expose and focus in the blink of an eye, so comparatively it's far slower.  
So, you see a composition and you stand in the right place.  Then you adjust the monitor angle if not shooting from the hip (as I prefer).  Then you adjust the ND to expose.  Then you adjust the zoom for the composition.  Then you adjust the focus.  With this kind of setup you have to rely on peaking, so you adjust it back and forth to see how much peaking is the maximum, then zero in on that.  Then you hit record.
This means several things:
You are immediately obvious when you stop and start fiddling with a camera in public.  There's no hiding.  People aren't stupid, especially these days. You cannot be this obvious without getting comfortable with it.  If you don't learn to be comfortable then you'll mentally implode before getting any shots, forcing you to relax and just play that role. By the time that you actually hit record, most of the people who were staring at you will have gotten bored and gone back to what they were doing.  They don't know you hit record, so the shot will contain people who aren't suddenly paying attention to you. This was a revelation for me because it forces a different way of shooting.
When you have a fast camera, you can act like a street photographer.  You watch the people, you see something about to happen, you quickly point the camera, and capture THE DECISIVE MOMENT.  This means you are shooting specific people doing specific things.  Good freaking luck doing that with a fully-manual cine camera.
When you have a slow camera, you probably can't anticipate moments far enough in advance to be ready in time, so you think differently.  You find a composition and shoot it, and anonymous people drift in and out of frame in ways you didn't specifically anticipate.  Sure, you can frame up a background and then wait for people to walk through it, and you could even see someone interesting a few hundred meters away and be ready when they walk past, but it's still a good distance from seeing something 2s before it happens and grabbing it.
This has a massive caveat though.  It's not a good way to shoot people you know, unless you're directing them or they're basically stationary.
The way I've come to understand the difference between cinema cameras and video cameras is that video cameras are designed to capture the world as it happens, and cinema cameras expect the world to bend around them.  There's lots of overlap now with that line blurring, but the concept is still a useful one, and the cameras with the best image quality still tend to be very self-centred.
 
Grendade #2: Fixed WB is awesome.
I used to shoot auto-WB because I used to think that you wanted 'correct' WB.  This mostly works, but leaves you with tiny WB 'errors' that change during the shot.  I used to think that the alternative was a fixed WB that would either be correct (if you took a manual grey-card reading at every location or whenever the lighting changed) or you'd use a fixed WB and then have to change it in post.
This is probably still true if you're doing something where the WB has to be 'correct', but the only situations I can think of where this would apply is for professional work.
I shot the whole trip on 5600K.
So, why wasn't this a 'problem' creating shots with 'wrong' WB?
Well, shots with warm light sources look warm:


Shots with cool light sources (like a blue sky) look cool:


Shots taken on a 'grey old day' look grey:

... and light sources that aren't on the warm/cool line will show as being coloured but don't look wrong - they just sort of look like that's what they looked like:


and sometimes can even look beautiful:



More to come, too many images to attach!

I had a chance to test this, it does look like the extra green shadow noise introduced by the new autofocus is somewhat reduced by shooting at the higher base ISO 4000 if the situation allows for it. So shooting with an ND could work.

B&H and Adorama are my most trusted vendors for used stuff. Fun thing about Adorama is that almost all their used stuff on their site is also listed in their eBay store with a “Make offer” option so you’re able to buy things under list price. They’re pretty good about actually accepting offers, too. 

I’ve had very good luck buying and selling with MPB in the past, but you need to reallyyyy stress test stuff from them IMO. I’ve returned a couple items that I didn’t feel were listed correctly. Like, things I bought at “Excellent” that I would characterize as “Poor” or “Acceptable”. Still, there are some great deals there.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

You asked about two specific cinema cameras - neither of which has stills capability - so what worthwhile opinion was there to influence when you weren't revealing 70% of the requirement ?
You have absolutely wasted the time of every well meaning person in this thread that was giving you very considered opinions not only on the two cameras that you originally requested a comparison of but also on many different similar alternatives that you might like to consider.
You then compounded this by encouraging more input on different types of camera that you knew would only meet 30% of your needs and would therefore not be suitable.
There were two points at which you should have mentioned that 70% of what you wanted this camera for wouldn't be covered by a cinema camera - the first time was in the original post and the second time was when anyone mentioned any other cinema camera that doesn't do stills.
If you had mentioned the stills requirement then you would have got responses for at least these three high end hybrids.
Sony a1
Nikon Z8/9
Fujifilm GFX100/II
The first two of these you did get recommendations for (the a1 was the very first reply) and interestingly didn't respond to at all when they are the only two cameras that have been mentioned in the thread that fulfil what you knew that you needed.
And, lo and behold, the last one is the one you've now bought.
I even said in my recommendation of the Z8/Z9 that "Naturally, if you do decide to shoot the odd still with it then it rinses every cinema camera out there at that particular task".
Did you not think that might have been an opportune moment to say "actually, I have to admit that I do need a still capability" instead of letting the debate go on a few more pages with people blissfully unaware they were wasting their time on the finer points of cinema cameras that would in no way be able to meet your requirements ?
If you had come to realise that it was a hybrid that you needed throughout the course of the discussion in the thread then thats one thing but to know that from the get go and not state it then or at any point subsequently is another thing entirely.
I hope you enjoy your GFX100II and it will certainly service the real needs that you have now revealed that you actually have pretty well but you owe an apology to everyone on this thread that you have clearly abused the goodwill of.

Sorry to hear about your medical issues and great to hear you are on the road to recovery.
I echo your thoughts about this place.
My last few weeks have been spent at my Mother’s bedside as she drifted away to her passing.
In times like that of huge change and trauma we look for constants to keep us connected to “normal” life.
In that respect, checking into here every now and again to find everyone having the same circular arguments was oddly comforting.
And I honestly mean that with love.

Global shutter is cool and all, but not having it really hasn't impacted my work given how good RS has gotten. 
I see this as being a much bigger deal for photography than video. 

Sports is the main target for the A9 III for Sony and the reason they went global shutter. Lots of pesky LED advertising signs which can cause banding, lots of fast action at the end of long lenses, fast pans, and also sometimes the need for complete discreetness and silence, no mechanical shutter or flash.
So for sports photography, they are getting ahead of the Canon EOS R3.
Also the very fast burst rates, small size of the body, smaller lenses (sort of) put it ahead of any mechanical shutter camera or 1D X Mark III.
They want to challenge Canon's dominance in football, F1, olympics and so on. Big money riding on it.
I think in this regard it is really well targeted and innovative, it's just a bonus that they eliminate rolling shutter for filmmakers as well, but not as big a deal for us as it is for sports shooters.

The lens itself. The compact body was just a bonus.

With the success of the x100v, I wonder why there hasn't been a large sensor compact refresh from Panny. The LX100 ii was barely an update too, I just don't understand...its one of my favorite cameras.

With the success of the x100v, I wonder why there hasn't been a large sensor compact refresh from Panny. The LX100 ii was barely an update too, I just don't understand...its one of my favorite cameras.

I'd love to see an update to the LX100. Add IBIS and PDAF, maybe ruggedize the body a bit, more modern video specs, tilt screen, bam.
Maybe offer a vlog variant where the screen tilts but can also flip up over the top of the cam (like some of the RX100 versions do), with a 16-35 or 20-50 equiv lens.