mercer

Yup all of their best material they have been honing for years shows up in their first album... if they can make a halfway decent sophomore attempt, they have a chance.

Definitely. I almost think I should preface every opinion I have as... I'm a hobbyist with dreams and no real deadline.

Haha, we are still talking about two different kind of no budget productions. The kind I am referring to has a budget of a grand, follows Dogme 96 rules, is literally a ONE MAN band production, from writing to shooting(I am the crew) and editing. If it takes an extra 20 hours to process the footage, it's my time. So for me Raw makes sense... or a camcorder... LOL. Seriously, I would shoot Raw but if I thought that would slow the production up too much, I'd shoot it on a bridge camera... 65mm or S16... LOL.

Not really if you think about it. If the C100 Mk ii is selling good, then why update the model? Now it's time, I guess. As easy as it is to release a new update every year, it cannot be a sustainable business plan for the likes of Sony. Even a two year cycle goes against tried and true product line development over the last 50 years. It really wasn't until electronic corporations that were cross marketing products between different divisions did this business model change and it only started happening in the past... 10 years or so. If Canon doesn't want to release a new camera every other second, they shouldn't have to just because Sony does. Slow and steady wins the race.

Your first example with the through the glass rack focus is a wickedly cool shot and completely impossible with any AF... I don't even think Canon's DPAF could do it, but that's the only AF that would even come close to what you're describing... but we already know that nobody on this site would dare shoot with a Canon DSLR even if it's their best bet for the AF they apparently need and require. If their work requires AF, then get an 80D because the GH5 will not help them. I work in the trade show industry and the overwhelming majority of videographers I see shoot with a Canon DSLR... the reasons are obvious. Hell, to be honest, if AF is important to a narrative filmmaker, most likely their work will be shown entirely online, a place where 1080p is more than enough, so get an 80D and be happy with great AF and place your efforts on story. Or if they still desire better IQ and great AF, then get a 70D with ML Raw.

Always the voice of treason...

I think you forgot a few "smalls" ? But yes I completely agree with your statement. I don't mean to pat myself on the back here, but without shooting Raw on the 5D3, I never would have gotten an image close to what I've been getting. And when you're shooting completely guerilla style as a one man band... every little bit of IQ helps. For instance, I know this isn't the best image in the world, but I would never get this level of skin texture with an h.264 codec... Even zoomed in, the actor's skin looks better than anything I've ever captured. So for someone like me, a shooter and colorist with a minimal amount of skills, and productions like mine, with a minimal amount of self-funding, to be able to do a minimal amount, or a simple but extensive amount of LUTS and still get an image that doesn't break proves just how effective Raw is for no budget productions. IMO. YMMV.

I had a BMPCC and an RX10ii as well. I never had any luck with the two BMPCCs I had... the first one was defective... it got blazingly hot to the touch and the second one I bought on eBay from someone who said it was new but when it arrived, it was definitely used and not worth the price of admission. The RX10ii I really liked. With the GFilm settings or the Flaat settings, I was getting okay colors but as a whole, the camera just wasn't a perfect fit for me. The GH5 should be awesome for you and for anybody serious about video. I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner, but since you obviously aren't one, it should be awesome. I just decided I didn't need two $2000 cameras. Most of the features that intrigued me most about the GH5 are in the FZ2500. But I don't make a living doing video work, so I guess I kind of have the luxury of trying different cameras every now and again... sometimes out of boredom and sometimes out of need. I hope these two cameras will fulfil my needs for the next year or two.

Thanks but I don't use AE and to be honest I decided against the GH5 for the time being. I actually just bought another FZ2500 on the cheap. The 5D3 already fills most of what I need in a camera and then for anything quick and dirty, I'll use the high bitrate, all-i, 1080p from the FZ2500.

So if you were shooting a no budget indie feature on a BMPCC/BMMCC today, you would shoot it on ProRes instead of Raw? It's like someone else wrote on another thread. Most productions shot in 4K are either big budget or extremely low budget.

The Voigtlander 25mm may be one of the nicest lenses I've ever used. The mix of modern/visual IQ with such a fast lens can be both breathtaking and utilitarian for a single lens. Would love to see the 17.5mm or 25mm used with an LS300 with the prime zoom function... hmm... maybe I should make that happen.

Really nice work here. It has that classic Panny look... the good look. Which lens(es) did you use and what picture profile?

Looks great! Speedbooster? Is that a push/pull zoom or does it have a zoom ring?

The colors look good but the skin is the issue... not the skin color but the texture. Otherwise, it looks great and I suspect some really great work done with the GH5.

Multi million dollar productions don't need Raw because they have so much other budgetary freedoms. It's us indie filmmakers that need every little bit of IQ help we can get. How do you compete against the FS5 and BM Ursa Pro at the same price range when they both shoot Raw? After using Raw in my current short, I don't think I would shoot anything but for a serious project. For smaller 2-3 minute pieces, yeah I would love a good solid space saving codec... probably 4K but that may even be overkill.

I am not here to knock the GH5, as I don't own one and cannot speak first hand about its quality. I may still purchase a GH5 someday. I cannot deny its allure. I have seen some insanely great work from it, yours included. The motorcycle video that Emmanuel posted the other day is also some of the nicest video I've seen from it, but there seemed to be a growing consensus, based on your labor, that the GH5 is better than a 5D3 with ML Raw and I believe they misconstrued the point of your work here. Or maybe I did. Either way, nice job. And food for thought.

The 80D is just about price reference and how Canon gets hit with a double standard more than Panasonic or Sony gets hit for the same tactics. The point of my post is not what is better, it's about what you are getting for your money. And in my opinion $6500 for a cinema camera that doesn't shoot Raw is not that great of a deal. The G85 is also a great camera. But there is a major price gap between the G85 and GH5. It almost seems like Panasonic doesn't know what they're doing. It benefits a lot of people, but these price gaps could also have a negative effect on brand loyalty. Take Canon for example... if you are a Canon shooter and you started with a Rebel series camera, you've bought into their ecosystem with some good primes and zooms but you're ready for an upgrade, you can buy an 80D. When you're ready for another upgrade, you can buy a 7Dmarkwhatever, then a 5D? Or a C100mk? Or a 1DX, etc... With Panasonic you can start with a GX85, then go to a G85, then you have to take a big jump to the GH5. At this point most buyers have accrued some native lenses and maybe they're ready for another jump... but the next logical jump is this cine camera that is $4500 more than your current camera and it doesn't use your lens collection... UMM?!?! So, JVC here you go...

Copy and paste the link, but wait a few seconds for the video to embed before you hit enter or save.

Am loving what you're getting from the LS300. I really think I'd rather have it than a GH5. Btw, your XT20 suggestion is interesting. I saw some nice videos online.

Haha, okay. I guess if your biggest take away from my post is my mention of the 80D, then enough said. But I guess I'll play, I never said Raw is mandatory but when your biggest competitor in that price range offers it at a cheaper price, then... But you're right, without Raw, I wouldn't spend an extra $2500 for Panny when I can get class leading AF, C-Log, Canon color in a small bitrate for $2500 less with the C100ii. But that's just me.

Again not trying to be contrary, but I'm not so sure about that either. The 5D3 is a professional stills camera and more than enough, even with its factory firmware, for wedding videos. The Canon badge also still pulls a lot of weight in the industry, I assume. But before I say any more and get castrated here, the GH5 is the best camera ever invented and the only option for any level of filmmaker and all other camera companies should stop making cameras...? Anyway, my original point is this... the author disliking Panasonic color and having to create a workaround to make it look like Canon color is more a testament to his abilities than it is a plus for the GH5.

But is that a testament to the GH5 or a deficit of the Ursa... JK. I really have to test these MLVFS I've been hearing so much about... if only someone on this site advocated more for them...

Good point, but I wouldn't use a GH5 under those circumstances either.

That's true and maybe I just feel like being a contrarian today, but Canon and Nikon repeatedly get slammed on this site for protecting product lines, when Panasonic does the same exact thing. The price and feature gap between the G85 and GH5 is huge, especially if you are an HD shooter. To have to pay $2000 to get the high bitrate, all-i 1080p is kind of ridiculous. Sure you are getting a bunch more features with the GH5, but for half the money you can get an 80D with fairly high bitrate all-i 1080p, with DPAF, with a S35mm aesthetic, with better native lens options. Unfortunately, as of now, it seems Panny's cineX camera will be the same. Without exporting Raw, I don't see the point in paying $6500 for the cineX camera. But admittedly this is all conjecture at this time.

Oh yeah, I am not disagreeing with you, the GH5 is an amazing camera with a lot of features. More camera than probably 50% of the readers' needs and GH5 owner's needs on this site. But I believe the premise of Hyalinejim's efforts is to get Canon-like color out of the GH5, because he wasn't fond of the color coming out of the GH5... so it's a dubious plus for the GH5... and I am really referring to the new GH5 fan boys that are floating around the site.