ac6000cw

I hear ya, but also, as has been the case for a lot of us, we have had an extremely unproductive last 2 years.
I don't want to go on about it (too much), but speaking for myself, just 10% of my normal workload.
On top of that, some jobs just don't allow for the same opportunities as some others and from the 6 (out of what should have been 60) jobs I have had in these last 2 years, pretty much all of them were compromised in one way or another.
I have expanded my video portfolio by just one job in now what is 2.5 years (ie, only a single one I have felt was anything better than anything from 2019) and ditto my photography portfolio.
I'd normally expect to finish any year with maybe 12 of each I could be proud of, so these last couple of years should have moved my personal game/portfolio on with 48 finished jobs, not just 2.
The net result of that has been deep, almost indescribable creative frustration.
Also speaking personally, I don't have any photo or video interests outside of my paid work, ie, my paid work IS my interest.
Believe me, I have tried some 'creative projects' of my own over the last couple of years, but to be honest, each one is like pulling teeth and does not inspire.
I'm a wedding hack and have been for 20 years.
There are other things I could do with photo and video, but again (without making excuses), the last 2 years in one sense would have allowed the time, but the means and sheer ability to do so, were removed by the circumstances.
On another note...and this goes for forums, YouTube channels, any social media and that is anything gear related, funny stuff, general mass appeal stuff, will always massively overshadow anything far more meaningful.
There is something utterly wrong with that, but at the same time, it just is what it is.
I rarely show my work other than from a marketing perspective to prospective future punters.
Why?
Two reasons I have established over the years and these are:
1: Outside of peddling my wares to my very specific niche market, no one gives a shit other than; me, my clients, my wife and my mother.
2: I've never sought the limelight or the stage. I'll participate in something I'm interested in participating in, but beyond, I don't give a shit whether anyone values my work or opinion. I really don't.
I will go and at least look at the Lightweight thread 😜 or whatever it's called and see if it's something I could participate in...

forum
/ˈfɔːrəm/
noun
A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"
Forums always have and always will be full of diverse people.
We have a community of professionals and non-professionals and all have different requirements, opinions and tastes.
The moment any forum (or other platform) gets super-controlled to the point where it is unnecessarily over-modded or the 'Topic Police' come along to give you a ticking off for even going slightly off topic, I lose interest.
Most topics veer off at some point. (Guilty)
Every gear topic gets compared with other gear. (Guilty)
Folks are always speculating about what's coming next. (Guilty)
That's just how it is.
 

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video.  Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. 
No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. 
(Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.)
That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format.
But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. 
I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. 
On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics.
Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about.
And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. 
Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 
Cheers

I have updated my 2018 article that still gets a lot of traffic including from this forum to reflect the new codecs. Note I only look at recording on card not on external devices nor RAW
https://interceptor121.com/2022/01/24/panasonic-gh5m2-and-s-series-demystifying-movie-recording-settings-2022-update/
I hope you find it useful if you have an S series or GH5M2

The crazy thing is that a couple years ago everybody was complaining that Canon wasn't giving its customers enough resolution. Now they give 8K and people still hate them.

Canon is making good enough cameras so far. It's a cutthroat business and making shitty cameras isn't going to help.
We're not getting better cameras if say Sony was the only game in the town. Innovation is incentivized through competition, and the improvement in camera tech over the past 10 years has been nothing short of astounding. 

Lastly, not sure why so many are emotional. Pretense of certain obligations? Companies have to abide by consumer protection laws, but none are obligated to fulfill your personal idea of a perfect camera that violates all patents that's infinitely future proof with unlimited upgrades with a lifetime warranty.
A company's aim is to sell you something. If you don't like it, don't buy. 
 
 

You're not comparing IBIS to in-camera digital image stabilisation in your video, which is what is relevant to the R5 versus R5c situation - you are comparing IBIS to post-production DIS.
AFAIK modern in-camera DIS normally uses in-camera motion sensors to control it (as does sensor-shift IBIS), whereas stabilisation in post normally has to derive the motion information just from the video frame content (motion estimation/prediction). One exception to that is Sony with some A7 models that add camera motion sensor data as metadata to the video files, so their software can perform post-production DIS based on real camera movement data.
I agree with you that you can't remove motion blur due to unintentional camera movement in post DIS - that needs OIS/IBIS. But I suspect that lens OIS + good in-camera DIS can get pretty close to what OIS + IBIS can achieve in a lot of situations, if it's properly integrated and implemented i.e. lens and body from same manufacturer.
Personally, based on my experience with Panasonic GX80, G80 and G9, I almost always have the additional EIS enabled because (for my use cases) I think the minimal image quality degradation is outweighed by the increased stability and lower warping artefacts at wide angles.

I think you might have some difficulty getting them to turn around their corporate policy on that basis.  But you can give it a go.  You just have to find the other seven people around the world that feel strongly about that particular facility.

Hi Andrew,
Welcome back - we've missed you!
I think you did the right thing in taking a break from it after 11 years, and very much agree with concentrating on creativity and how to get the best out of more modestly priced equipment. The latest multi-thousand dollar cameras are interesting as indicators of what will trickle down to the mainstream later, but there are a ton of other information and opinion sources covering that anyway, and for me the creative and tell-it-how-it-is blog posts/articles/forum posts have always been the real strength of EOSHD.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Hi Andrew,
Welcome back - we've missed you!
I think you did the right thing in taking a break from it after 11 years, and very much agree with concentrating on creativity and how to get the best out of more modestly priced equipment. The latest multi-thousand dollar cameras are interesting as indicators of what will trickle down to the mainstream later, but there are a ton of other information and opinion sources covering that anyway, and for me the creative and tell-it-how-it-is blog posts/articles/forum posts have always been the real strength of EOSHD.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

I'd agree with the others that out of that list the GH4 is the one I'd go for, with the G7 second.
But if your budget will run to a good used GH4, I'd also seriously suggest trying to stretch it maybe 25% further to a used G9, which is in a different league (GH5-level) of 1080p picture quality with up to 10-bit 4:2:2 100Mbps capability (plus you get 4k @ 24/25/30p up to 10bit 4:2:0 150Mbps and 4k50/60p up to 8bit 4:2:0). It's also got better IBIS and video AF than the GH5 (mk1). Main downsides (versus the GH series) are 30 minute max record times per clip (10 mins for 4k50/60p), no All-I or > 150Mbps codecs and no 1080p @ 24p recording - which has always been a weird limitation, as it does offer 4k @ 24p recording.
(In the UK, used G9s from dealers are around £500 - £650 at the moment, which is excellent value for such a capable camera)

ProDAD Mercalli v5 can do this - I use the software a lot but not the lens correction part of as I don't have any need for it.
Of all the software stabilisers I've tried over the years, Mercalli v5 is easily the best I've ever used.
https://www.prodad.com/Video-Stabilization-for-Professionals/Mercalli-V5-SAL-Windows-29795,l-us.html
Note that people like Magix sometimes bundle it with their video editing software at a much lower cost than buying Mercalli on its own from ProDAD (but it doesn't look like they are doing that at the moment, unfortunately).

Attempt #3
Added in some Luma adjustments.  We're starting to get into pretty tricky territory here, as you'll see from the curves, so this is where I start saying near enough is good enough.  Plus, with a checker we're still firmly in theory-land and who knows what will happen with real footage.
Alexa:

CineD:

This was accomplished with this Hue vs Luma curve:

There are still some challenges though, like the olive green is way too dark, but bringing it up with a Hue curve will bring up the other greens, or if I make the curve specific to the olive patch then is likely to break real footage, especially 8-bit footage.  It's a similar story with the brown patch.
I could go on to soft qualifiers etc etc, but you literally have no idea what colours that aren't on the chart you're severely messing up, and this is where the brain starts having problems thinking about subtle shifts within a 3D space.
Plus, to get this match, I had to apply a luma curve to the CineD footage that matched the levels, which would mean that using this on real footage would darken everything, but that's not sensible in a real-world situation.
Time for real footage.

While I'm no fan of the Sigma 18-35, it can be (with careful consideration) the basis for a nice look.
I'd suggest:
Diffusion filters (as others have suggested) but be aware there are lots of them and all have different looks so that's worth doing some research into - most brands will provide comparisons of their various products so you can narrow down and then look at real-world reviews Some of the characteristics of vintage lenses can be added in post, including: Softening of the edges (use a mask like a vignette but use a blur effect - experiment with different types of blurs here too - radial vs pinch(?) vs "lens" vs directional blurs etc Chromatic aberrations can be added, either to the whole frame or to the edges using a mask Vintage lenses often vignette Vintage lenses often have pincushion distortion - where objects on the edges get curved like a slight fish-eye effect - this can often be introduced with a "lens correction" slider which are common You can even put an oval shape over the front of the lens which will make your bokeh oval-shaped (at least when you have the lens wide-open) but bear in mind it will lower the light coming through the lens and depend DoF slightly With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side.
It used to make me mad too, but now I realise that it's all a scam.  
They say the biggest lies are the most successful and I think it's true here too.  Have a look at this:
and I don't mean "see how large the budget is" - I mean go shot by shot, pause each one, and actually look at the image.
If I can take a small liberty for educational purposes, have a look at the frame at 14s, it includes the main star of the whole movie looking like this:

and then imagine what DXOMark would say if they tested this lens:

This single frame reveals the truth about the cinematic look:
The video is uploaded in 2K - because the film is projected in 2K in cinemas The frame has edges that are blurry, even in 2K (see above snippets) The frame has significant pincushion distortion (look at the "straight" lines on the edges of frame) It has quite deep DoF It has spectacular colour Checkmate YouTubers!  
Of course, I say that sarcastically because the reality is that they've checkmated all of us years ago when they started talking about sharp lenses and 4K and we didn't just laugh and skip the video and watched something remotely sensible instead.
I mean, that single frame is so optically poor from a technical perspective that most forum nerds would recommend throwing that lens away, and yet it was used in a key scene in a $250M movie that has grossed $700M+ worldwide.  
Turns out we didn't need MORE pixels, we needed BETTER pixels.
The proof was in the movie theatre the whole time and we never called their bluff.
Or even been to a movie theatre in the last 30 years.....
Why?
The DoF is a function of focal length, so if I take my 12-35/2.8 lens, set it to 12mm f2.8 and focus on an object it will have a different DoF than if I set it to 35mm f2.8 and focus on the same object from the same camera position.  
DoF is variable, even with constant aperture zoom lenses.  In fact, it's probably less variable on a variable aperture zoom.
You said you don't really zoom while filming, so constant exposure isn't really an issue from that point of view.  If you've zoomed and want to match exposure then just adjust your ND - you've adjusted your composition already so a twist of an ND isn't a big deal.  If you're shooting with variable apertures and matching exposure with ISO and wanting to match the noise profile then just get familiar with NR - most cinema cameras have noise (even at their native ISOs) that would make any videographer CRY.  Professional colourists know about NR and how to use it, and it will be used on almost every professional movie or TV show you have ever seen.  Videographers complain about noise in their images and it just shows they literally don't know the first thing about high-end productions (and I mean first thing, because NR is usually the first node of a professional colourists workflow).
Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent.  The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges.
I'd say from just that statement alone you're doing far better than most forum peeps, because:
You seem to know what kind of shooter you are You seem to actually shoot (armchair critics aren't a fan of the 12-32mm lens) You seem to understand how the equipment you have relates to what your requirements are ("nice and portable" isn't a think armchair critics who don't shoot say) Sadly, this makes you far ahead of the curve.  Most of camera internet discussions are about specs, with people recommending you change what and how you shoot in order to match the latest equipment rather than the other way around, and TBH mostly it's just the blind leading the stupid, or these days the shills leading the gullible to part with their money!

Not that I know of in a general sense. AFAIK the record and shutter buttons can't be re-assigned/programmed, only the 'function buttons'.
'4k photo' mode uses the shutter button, but that's limited to 4k at 30p only.

Based on my experience with moving from a G3 -> G5 -> G6 -> G80 -> G9 (with GF5, GX80 and GX800 as extras), I think Panasonic's 1080p quality went a bit downhill with the G80 - it has more aliasing in 1080p than the G6, and in the GX80 it's on the soft side. The LX100 suffers badly from aliasing in 1080p as well.
Of the above list, the G6 is my favourite 1080p-max camera - but the G9 blows all of the above out of the water on 1080p quality (it's GH5 quality level).
If you want a really discreet, cheap, micro 4/3 cam with 4k and decent 1080p, try a GX800/850/GX880 with a stabilised pancake lens like the 12-32mm. 4k is limited to 5 minutes, 1080p to 20 minutes, no 'creative movie' mode (except by using 4k photo mode, which is 30p only), IBIS or viewfinder, but it's a really small, light, camera and doesn't suffer from the on-board audio IBIS noise problem which the GX80 and G80 have.

Based on my experience with moving from a G3 -> G5 -> G6 -> G80 -> G9 (with GF5, GX80 and GX800 as extras), I think Panasonic's 1080p quality went a bit downhill with the G80 - it has more aliasing in 1080p than the G6, and in the GX80 it's on the soft side. The LX100 suffers badly from aliasing in 1080p as well.
Of the above list, the G6 is my favourite 1080p-max camera - but the G9 blows all of the above out of the water on 1080p quality (it's GH5 quality level).
If you want a really discreet, cheap, micro 4/3 cam with 4k and decent 1080p, try a GX800/850/GX880 with a stabilised pancake lens like the 12-32mm. 4k is limited to 5 minutes, 1080p to 20 minutes, no 'creative movie' mode (except by using 4k photo mode, which is 30p only), IBIS or viewfinder, but it's a really small, light, camera and doesn't suffer from the on-board audio IBIS noise problem which the GX80 and G80 have.

Don't forget that there are tradeoffs with switching lenses as well.
A 24-105 or other zoom lens might not be the "best" in a direct comparison (not the sharpest, not the lightest, not the fastest, not the nicest bokeh, etc etc), but if you're shooting an event and have just taken a portrait and something suddenly happens that requires a wide, the zoom will give you an average quality benign wide shot and a dedicated portrait lens won't give you any usable shot at all, and a photo from an average lens beats no photo from the best lens every single time.

Thanks for all the comments guys.
Just the motivation I need to try and turn the ship around.
I can't promise much at the moment. Hopefully I find the energy to do that. Would not like this place just whittle away to obscurity after 11 years so if I do need to change what I do in life, I would look at selling EOSHD and would never just hit a button to take it offline. The original purpose and spirit of picking up a small mirrorless camera and making films is still there today and we need to help one another on that mission.

Panasonic is easily my favorite consumer video brand.  They have my favorite image, favorite tools, and the best approach for video-creators, in my opinion.
The EVA-1 had a beautiful image and I did own it for some time. I agree that it really needed an MFT mount. The FS7 was so successful not just because of its specs, but because almost EVERYONE loved being able to use a speedbooster and their EF lenses on it. Same with the FS5. I knew a lot of owners of these cameras and only recently have people really started using native glass on them. 
With an MFT mount and the same sensor, users could have done the exact same thing on the EVA-1, while also having the option of using a 1.5x (give or take) MFT crop to use their MFT lenses and keep it small and light. And it did have a 5.7k sensor, so that would have been plenty for pixel-to-pixel 4k with an MFT lens.
--
At this point, I think Panasonic should really avoid going after the C300s and FS7/FX9s of the world and give us something completely different with the EVA-2 (don't even call it that). If they put out an EVA-2 with the normal "new" specs (120fps in 4k, HDMI raw, maaybe 8k in h265), then I don't think they'll pull many FX6/C300/C70 owners away.
Instead, give us a full-frame BGH-2 with all of those great specs, internal NDs, XLRs, and shake it up a bit. Z-Cam and the Komodo has shown that people really like this form factor. 
 
 

I think of all the video-capable cameras I've owned, the Pana G6 (which Andrew dubbed the 'GH2 Redux' when he reviewed it) was almost perfect for me - small, light, fits nicely in the hand, mic input, FHD 50p/60p to MP4 files, a lever to control power zoom lenses (the last G series camera to have that), 'creative video' mode etc. and a simple uncluttered control layout. For stills (not video), it also had variable telephoto sensor crop controlled by the zoom lever.
It's successors gained 4k video and then IBIS, but I think they lost some of the 'only what you really need' control simplicity along the way.

I think of all the video-capable cameras I've owned, the Pana G6 (which Andrew dubbed the 'GH2 Redux' when he reviewed it) was almost perfect for me - small, light, fits nicely in the hand, mic input, FHD 50p/60p to MP4 files, a lever to control power zoom lenses (the last G series camera to have that), 'creative video' mode etc. and a simple uncluttered control layout. For stills (not video), it also had variable telephoto sensor crop controlled by the zoom lever.
It's successors gained 4k video and then IBIS, but I think they lost some of the 'only what you really need' control simplicity along the way.

Dito.
I found a GH2 a few months back for dirt cheap and ran across this comparison:
I find it absolutely amazing that the hacked GH2 still holds up in some areas against the GX80, which is a great value proposition in itself. I'd go as far as saying the hacked GH2 still holds up in many ways to current offering by Panasonic (G100). This not a knock on Panasonic but rather congratulating the people who've hacked the GH2. Now, actually prefer working with a GH2 to working with a GX80.

Yeah, the client wrote it, recorded it.  I edited to her script. 
This video work is indicative, I think, of my  "90% rule."  Meaning, I score shots from 1 (shit) to 100 (perfection), and often try to hit a sweet spot of 90.  Yes, you could do a bunch of other crafting to squeak out the final 10% to make the shots technically perfect, but the last 10% requires an ridiculously exponential amount of expense and effort.
So, one tries to find a balance.  I'd give myself an 80-85 on this stuff.
It's all relative to what the client demands, what you demand of yourself, and what the budget allows.
That all being said, the era of dudes like me delivering "90" is going away.  Clients are okay with 30 these days.  On the high end clients will expect 100.  Seems like people in my range of stuff are not in demand so much anymore.
p.s. I add a lot of grain in post.  My ISO never went over 800 on this gig.

I think of all the video-capable cameras I've owned, the Pana G6 (which Andrew dubbed the 'GH2 Redux' when he reviewed it) was almost perfect for me - small, light, fits nicely in the hand, mic input, FHD 50p/60p to MP4 files, a lever to control power zoom lenses (the last G series camera to have that), 'creative video' mode etc. and a simple uncluttered control layout. For stills (not video), it also had variable telephoto sensor crop controlled by the zoom lever.
It's successors gained 4k video and then IBIS, but I think they lost some of the 'only what you really need' control simplicity along the way.