austinchimp

This. I got my E2 earlier this week and it's fantastic. Still working out the rig and monitor situation though and haven't tried the audio yet but it has XLR in. No internal NDs or IBIS, but then as others have said, these aren't common on 'cinema cameras'

One thing I've discovered - and this might help some people - is that the rendering settings in Premiere can create extreme banding and blotches in your h256 footage once you apply a lut. I had terrible problems with this on my Mac, before I realised I'd accidentally created a sequence with the Metal hardware acceleration setting selected under Project settings. When I changed it to OpenCL, the banding went away completely. Might be something worth playing with. I usually find Software rendering to be the most reliable for quality, albeit by far the slowest.

All the ones I've tested do, yes.

I'm using the Fringer with my Canon lenses. Yes the AF is a bit dodgy but the main benefit is being able to use IS. To cover the wide angle problem I'm planning to get the 10-24mm. I have the Canon 10-22 APSC which works well, but doesn't have IS, and even at those wide angles you still need IS in my opinion.

If it would have had an optical zoom I would have been more interested. I've learned the hard way that gadgets like this aren't really right for me. There's the initial excitement and the feeling that 'this is going to change the way I work!' then I use it a few times and realise that in most cases I prefer a more conventional image from a bigger camera. And then I never use it again, maybe for a special job very occasionally. It could be a useful tool in very specific circumstances, and I bet we'll see loads of videos from it on YouTube for the next couple of weeks, but in 3 months everyone will have moved onto the next thing. Similar to the Gopro 7 hyperlapse, and the Insta 360 which came out lately. Don't mean to sound jaded but I've been burned out by the endless stream of consumerism lately with each new toy being sold as a transformational creative tool, when really they're playing to our desire for shiny new things, and that illusive special gadget that's going to make me into the next Casey Neistat or Martin Scorsese.

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure. The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely. I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded. The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus. Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment. https://vimeo.com/265565687

This is why I returned the Viltrox and bought the Fringer too. So far the Fringer has worked great, with very good lens compatibility.

Yeah that looks great. Ideally I don't want to use anything large though. I'm not asking for any particular job. Obviously if a project requires stabilisation I use it. I'm only asking because it's something that's been on my mind for a while. I do find that most electronic gimbals look very in-organic and steadicams do look more cinematic to me, like in your example. I really like a little organic wobble in the movement, like a cinema verite thing. That's what I'm trying to recreate with a small camera. I just hate micro-jitter and shake that reminds me of 5dmkii videos from 2009.

I find that one of the main differentiators in feel between small mirrorless or DSLRs and larger cameras like the Alexa is the movement of the camera itself when it's handheld. Small cameras have that horrible jittery shaky distracting motion while larger cameras can feel 'cinematic' even while they're being carried while running for example, and using unstabilised lenses. Like in this clip at 1'35. The obvious factor is rolling shutter, but assuming that my camera has low rolling shutter, how best to replicate this look and feel with - say - a X-T3? Two things I want to avoid are shoulder mounting, and making a big rig. I've thought about actually weighing the camera down somehow, or perhaps using a handle mounted on the top to avoid the usual mirrorless shooting position of holding it out in front of you. Any ideas??

The Fringer is working with all my lens's I.S. now. After updating the firmware on the adaptor it seems to work better than the Viltrox. Annoying really as I'm going to have to keep it and send back the Viltrox, and the Viltrox is half the price! AF-C fails under some circumstances, but I'm hoping I'll get some usable results. Getting IS on my EF lenses was my main concern and that seems to be working so far.

Great, thanks

Interesting info, thanks. Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen anything about this.

Actually surprised how close they looked here.

I've tried the Viltrox with mixed results, have a Fringer on order. I'm hoping the Fringer will have better lens compatibility, make my Canon lens' IS function properly, and have faster autofocus. Otherwise I'll send it back and keep the Viltrox. I do like how responsive Fringer seem to be regarding firmware updates.

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic... I haven't spent a great deal of time working with the Fuji files yet, but I have played around with them a bit so this is based on that. I've worked with the GH5 since shortly after it was released so know it quite well. From what I've seen so far the X-T3 has better dynamic range, particularly in the shadows. Gh5 shadows tend to get quite crushed and noisy. The quality of the image also seems more organic to me and less brittle and sharpened. And I agree the GH5 has good colour, maybe not so much out of the camera but with a little tweaking, mainly on skin which can be a little yellow. However there is an illusive sweet spot with colour and skin tones for me where it just feels right, and the Fuji lives in that sweet spot a lot more. I haven't done much testing but I'd predict that on the vectorscope Fuji skin tones will be closer to the skin line under more circumstances. GH5 skin was often awry or distorted. I've also noticed Canon skin is pretty much always bang on the line.