mercer

When I bought my first DSLR... the t2i... the exciting part was the ability to use shallow depth of field to help hide our lack of production and art design on DIY films. Those original Canon DSLRs lacked detail on wide angle, infinity focused shots but close ups with shallow depth of field looked great. Unfortunately, wide angle shots became very popular due to skateboarding videos and people's desire to go handheld, so people wanted sharper, more detailed images.
With IBIS and AF in FF cameras, it makes sense why shallow DOF has become popular again. Like anything else, it's just another tool. I kinda miss tripod and slider shots if I'm being honest... I imagine they work great now with the great AF and motorized sliders that are available.
That said, I was recently watching footage from my friend's old HV20 and was floored by how great it looked in that old Canon "cinema" mode. What it lacked in DR, it made up for in color and atmosphere... and no color grading needed.

Both are true. Just from my own limited experience - my EF-S 17-55 2.8 has worked well via adapters/focal length reducers, with functioning AF, on every Sony body I've used (FS700, FS5, A7R1, A6600) but is terrible compared to the inexpensive Sony 24-105 f4 - literally worlds apart. So if AF is important, it generally has to be native.
Personally I only use it for 'fun' shooting and for anything intentional use my Super Takumars, but even for the 'fun' stuff I want AF I can rely on.

Also the Arri LogC curve and color science is considered the best in the industry. One of the biggest selling points for Resolve is the ability to "mimic" LogC via a Color Space Transform, so now that you can get that in camera with the GH7 with IBIS, and usable AF... working natively in FCPX via ProRes or ProRes Raw, is a pretty big deal.
The GH7 is THE camera I never knew I always wanted and probably won't get. Maybe.

I've used most of the big NLEs and prefer Final Cut. The magnetic timeline is so fast to use once you learn it that tracks seem so 20th century to me. Like they're something left over from a Steenbeck film editor or something whereas Final Cut is definitely from the 21st century. I'm sure if they hadn't patented the magnetic timeline all the other NLEs would have copied it by now.
The roles thing and the built in database are so good, again once you get to know them. I've assistant edited on both TV series and narrative films, (including a feature) using it and it's much less work and takes less time than my experience with Avid or Premiere.
I think Apple is going with the approach that they have something so good and it's so popular that they promote it much. They kind of don't need to as it's become the de facto standard for web video production. They don't update it as often as some would like but when they do it's always a better version of a feature than anyone else's and tends to be rock solid too.
I think it's not going anywhere, in fact they just had an update this morning.

1. learn the color temps of things irl
2. set the camera wb based on what looks good and vibes 👍

That makes sense! Form and function working together creating a new visual style.
You can grab shots from two different locations and match them in an edit.
You can even shoot one side of a conversation if you only have one actor available and get the other angle another day.
With shallow DOF, I can shoot inside a coffee house, on a crowded ferry and grab shots while I look like a tourist with a camera and nobody will come back and say that blurry counter is my coffee shop.
So as much as I understand that it can be overused, there's also a very practical reason to use it for me.
Just another tool. 

When I bought my first DSLR... the t2i... the exciting part was the ability to use shallow depth of field to help hide our lack of production and art design on DIY films. Those original Canon DSLRs lacked detail on wide angle, infinity focused shots but close ups with shallow depth of field looked great. Unfortunately, wide angle shots became very popular due to skateboarding videos and people's desire to go handheld, so people wanted sharper, more detailed images.
With IBIS and AF in FF cameras, it makes sense why shallow DOF has become popular again. Like anything else, it's just another tool. I kinda miss tripod and slider shots if I'm being honest... I imagine they work great now with the great AF and motorized sliders that are available.
That said, I was recently watching footage from my friend's old HV20 and was floored by how great it looked in that old Canon "cinema" mode. What it lacked in DR, it made up for in color and atmosphere... and no color grading needed.

I haven't shot ProRes Raw, but with raw cDNG files you can correct WB in post via the Raw Tab on the Color page in Resolve. You should try to set your Kelvin Temperature as close in camera as possible or use the presets. And then once in Resolve you can change the temperature and tint on the raw tab. As long as you know what type of lighting equals what Kelvin temperature you should be able to get it close in camera, or change it in post pretty easily.
In FCPX, there are a few options... you can change the temp/tint with the color wheels tool, you can use the Balance Color tool which is an automated process in FCPX, or you can follow some of Larry Jordan's suggestions... search for his channel on YouTube, he is pretty much the go to guy for FCPX questions and more than likely will have the answer for you.
On a side note, which could be useful... with the GH7, I think you can have your WB set to auto and then customize one of your buttons to toggle on/off AWB Lock. Toggle off the lock for a couple seconds while the camera figures out the WB and then toggle on the AWB Lock. The S5iiX could do it and I found it to be pretty reliable with the ProRes files I was recording. That said, certain situations... like sunsets, AWB may not get the dramatic orange and pink tones perfectly and will adjust it more conservatively and you may have to tweak it to taste in post.

I read that the dark lighting on film noir films was for budget reasons initially. To cover up gaps in the budget in the sets by just not lighting some areas.
 
Ah, yes, The HV20 (and HDV) revolution. I did some great stuff with my two matching HV20s. The image still holds up. (Some of the tapes haven't though. They're starting to develop drop outs.)

motion jpeg codec is compression within the frame, like I-frame, all-i, etc, not like long gop that compresses among similar frames. the former has higher bit rates and larger files, but better quality, especially at higher bit rates, especially for movements. 

Because this thread got hijacked to talk about sensor sizes, we're talking about GH cameras instead over on the thread for FF cameras:
 

Yup, the GH1 was hacked, it had some very high bit rate options with a hack. 

The key to this approach is to maximise the savings to offset the cost of the trip to Japan so you get together a massive and definitive list of everything camera and lens wise that you will ever, ever, ever need and buy it in one go.
It has to be all the stuff you'll ever need though so you won't ever have to buy anything else ever again in your photographic career.
I've done that on fourteen different occasions now.

And this is why one shouldn't get hung up on imatest
The whole point of RAW for me is that the RAW sensor data is exposed in the final image, including grain texture and shadow noise.
Also this seemingly standard method in tests of exposing CMOS sensors for highlights, then ramping up the blacks - think about the impact that has on colour in the mids and tonality in the shadows. Yes you are showing what kind of dynamic range is possible but in creative terms it is a step back.
And when you start applying NR to the shadows in some misguided uncreative attempt to squeeze out that last 0.5 stops of dynamic range, you may as well shoot H.265
It would be interesting to take the uncompressed Cinema DNG cameras... Blackmagic Pocket 4K original firmware, Sigma Fp-L, 5D Mark III Magic Lantern, Digital Bolex and compare the image aesthetically to N-RAW and ProRes RAW, in terms of how close one or the other looks to film.
And film remains the gold standard for atmosphere, warts and all.
I always look at images and not so much the numbers especially when we are talking less than 1 stop differences between cameras.
Unless it is a case of Alexa 35 which is far ahead of everything else.

Can we talk about the GH7 in this thread?

Thank you for sharing! @kye That 45 - 150 is very intriguing and tiny! I've been owning one for years now when it came with my Lumix G7 and I still haven't ever used it. It is time to change that!
As two of my friends here on Eoshd already know, I have been out filming with my Bmpcc lately. I could write a longer paragrsph about it. No ibis, coupled with a 25mm lens felt challenging but also very freeing from perfectionism and especially rewarding. Four internal batteries lasted for 30min of material so I came to appreciate every time I pressed the recording button. In the edit I was grateful for every stable shot that DID get recorded and not screwed up by an empty battery. I got "full" four batteries waiting to fool me again. Maybe tonight. Last weeks magical night during blue hour with the Bmpcc and a Zeiss Tevidon 25mm:
 
 

OG BMPCC and 45-150mm f4-5.6 zoom...
The cinema flows from the people through the equipment into the edit.
No excuses.

Gentlemen,
I think we can all agree that at least the FF aesthetic exists and it is all shallow DOF. Youtube told me so!
 
 

Yeah but he was using the LF which is full frame, and they were matching FOV, so Alexa had a 40mm lens which is closer to the human eye and the GH7 had a 21mm which is a wide angle that will round out your subject. The LF has the clear advantage there.
Even a wide angle on full frame will have more spatial quality than an equivalent wide angle on m4/3.

I'm also not a huge fan of this new airy Midtone look that everybody seems to be doing. It looks like some kind of Bravo reality show about LA real estate.

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite.
I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite.
I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

I had one of those deals in France. It was just too good to pass up in November of 2022. When you wait and buy, you usually don't end up losing that much when you sell it back. However, what happens when you love the look of the camera?
With the GH7, it looks as though Panasonic has addressed EVERY problem there was with the GH6 with the exception of a chunky body, but many people like that too. The image is 98% of the image of the S5ii (with the right lens), but you have that screen which is so much better than the flip-out only screen on the S5ii- it's a major usability issue. Also, there's the high frame rates. I currently have the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, a prefect lens for that body... we'll see in November. I will probably dump the idea though if a M43 small camera comes along because I'm still a believer in keeping the format relatively small and that is not the GH7.