John Matthews

16 minutes ago, kye said:

In terms of waiting vs buying, I adopt a risk management strategy.  If an option in front of you is worth buying even if there were no new products, and you couldn't wait (you need the features now) then I say buy.  If you can wait, then wait until you can't make do with what you have and then buy then.  Worst cases are that: 1) you bought and then a better option was released - but if you needed the tool for the job then it was an investment and also you can just trade-up with the interim projects helping to justify the loss, or 2) you can wait and so you do wait and no better option is released - but that's fine too because either you never buy because you never needed to upgrade or you eventually do need to upgrade and you buy then when the product is cheaper.  

Yes, to buy or not. For Apple devices, I'd always go to the MacRumors.com buyer's guide. They'd say "buy now, caution, or don't buy". Given the G9ii is about to be released, I'm sure the "Buy now" would be warranted. However, do I NEED it? No. I just sold a whole bunch of gear that I wasn't using enough, I now I have the funds to pull the trigger on something I WANT. Sure, it would suck to see a GH7 coming out with a variable ND (in ALL MODES) and PDAF in a smaller body for much cheaper, but I don't think it'll happen.

There's also the notion of camera paralysis, not know which one to take because they're all great- I had this. Camera upgrade paralysis is another thing- thinking there's something better soon. In terms of "bigger hybrid camera" for M43, I have my doubts about anything coming soon other than a GH7; even then, it won't be until January to March IMO. I trust Panasonic to not screw their customers too much by obsoleting just after release. Given it took 5 years to have a meaningful release of a G9ii, I think it'll be fine.

On another note, I did see a video by Geeky Nerdy Techy. He said there was moiré in one of his videos:

Again, most cameras will have frequency where it hits. I'm not exactly sure if it's better than or worse than the GH6 in that regard, but it would be interesting to know.

25 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

That's one major reason I decided against an S5 ii - the others were the size & weight of long telephoto lenses and the APS-C crop in 4k50p/4k60p (I normally shoot everything in 50p, so it would effectively be an APS-C video camera for me).

So sixth months ago I looked seriously at more upmarket APS-C cameras for video instead, but having played with an R7 and an XH2s I decided they felt too large and/or awkward in my hands (the Sony A6700 wasn't announced then, and the FX30 has no viewfinder so ruled out). Then the XS20 was announced and I pre-ordered it... but before deliveries started a used OM-1 turned up at a really good price so I bought it and cancelled the XS20 order.

So in the end the fact that I already had micro4/3 lenses and the OM-1 just feels 'right' in my hands (and is weather sealed, with top-notch IBIS and a lovely 5.76M dot EVF) kept me in the micro4/3 world a while longer...

I've also seen moiré on many other cameras. I think it's just a frequency thing. I've noticed, for example, many YouTubers are turning to wearing linen instead of cotton; so, I imagine it's a problem on many cameras. I do believe, perhaps falsely, that pixel density has a major role- the more, the better; I think M43 on the GH6 or G9 ii definitely has that going for it. The other problem for me with moiré is that I just can't seem to get rid of it. I wish there was a plugin or AI that could meaningfully make it go away, as Topaz has done with aliasing. Until then, pixel density and anti-aliasing filters are all we've got IMO.

25 minutes ago, Beritar said:

I've found this interesting video comparing the G9II to some Nikon, Fuji and Sony cameras.
IBIS looks fantastic on the G9II, colors look as great as the GH6 and focus is very fast with the 12-60mm PL.

However, exactly like my GH6 in low light (and my S5II with most PP), I really don't like the details rendering of the G9II.
On the video, the woman has freckles and it's perfect to see the rendering of fine details. What I see is a a mix of smoothing and sharpening resulting in a very bad image (especially when cropping) in my opinion.
The Nikon cameras are even worse. Fine details are totally destroyed, exactly like on my good old Samsung NX1.
I'm glad I never bought Nikon cameras for video.
Sony is Sony, as always, the rolling shutter is bad, the IBIS is average, but the details rendering is much closer than what we had on the first gen S1 and S5, much closer to a raw picture without artifice.

It's always nice to see the IBIS, rolling shutter AF etc compared, but for me one of the most important thing is the pure image quality, including colors and details.
I understand some people like very soft image in video, but to my eyes the G9II (and the Z9/Z8) just doesn't look good, of course YMMV.
 

 

That was an interesting comparison but also rather limited being at some show. The conclusion for him was to say the FX30 was the best because, even though it lacks good IBIS, the "photos are amazing" and costs a little less. I'm finding that rather curious because FX30 lacks an actual shutter, meaning it can't even do flash photography, a basic feature for almost any "photo" camera... maybe it can, but I couldn't find any info on it. Also, he talks about M43 not doing well in low-light, which is not accurate due to their amazing IBIS (maybe he meant "high ISO"?). That was a very confusing review for me.

As far as "detail rendering", I never had any problem with the GH6; nor did I notice anything. Maybe if you A-B with another camera, it's different. If anything, I'd say the trouble with GH6 is the implementation of DR Boost. The rolling shutter on the GH6 was definitely NOT an issue either, especially with IBIS enabled.

24 minutes ago, 92F said:

If you focus on stability and autofocus and wide angle, cheaper and lighter lenses...the G9 II surely ?

Otherwise if the sensitivity and creative capabilities of the FF interest you the S5 II , but overall it will be more expensive and bulky... 

And wait for in-depth tests on the sensitivity of the G9II ?

Yeah, I've said for such a long time I would not go FF again. As I said, back issues will keep me from it. I've already got all the lenses; staying with M43 makes more sense. Also, slow motion is more important for me than the high ISO capabilities in video (as I can add lights) and 1/3 of a stop I'd gain in DOF (Olympus 17mm f/1.2 on M43 vs Panasonic 35mm f/1.8 on FF).

The G9ii will drop in price too, but I might just pull the trigger. The only thing that's going to stop me is a GH7 with variable ND (IN ALL MODES, including slow motion); in which case, I sell the G9 ii and get the GH7. I wish Panasonic would tease us more with specs.

23 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

What about a used OM-1?

I had one in for test and loved the size, weight, handling, build…everything really other than that it was 4/3rds.

Nothing against 4/3rds per se but for my work, I think it would have niggled at the back of my mind continually.

If I did not have the needs I have, hands down easily I’d pick the OM-1 over anything else. Even the G9ii. 

I failed to mention the slow-mo capabilities matter to me. The GH6 has been soooo good with that.

48 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

telephone

*telephoto

3 hours ago, kye said:

I'd wait.  Both are far too large for me!

But for you, I'd say you should think about the total package, including lenses, batteries, accessories, etc, and work out what suits you and your workflow best.

TBH, the camera body probably matters least out of everything...

Yes, I understand. Waiting would also make some sense.

The G9 ii would be even better for me if it were just a little smaller, but, then again, I have a smaller camera too with smaller lenses. I think Panasonic has done away with all the really small (GX850, GM1, which keep gaining price on the used market) and they've gone with smallish like the GX85 and GX9. Something tells me they might come out with a rangefinder camera soon and it will have PDAF and decent video features, but that size camera won't work for my bigger lenses either whereas the G9 ii or GH7 would. The S5 ii would be super for interior stuff, but I don't want to sink 1000 euros on a telephone with AF. Also, I'd never use it because it's too big.

The one thing that bugs me about the S5 ii is possible moiré. I've never seen it on the GH6 and I bet the G9 ii will be the same. The GH6 has been a little too quirky for me in that DR Boost needed to be set on or off. I don't like that.

2 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I’d ignore the 300 euro difference (pretend it does not exist or they were the same price) and then decide which suited my needs best.

If I had any of the f1.2 or 1.7 lenses, probably the G9.

If I shot an equal amount of stills and both stills and video in low light, the S5.

That's helpful because I have a 17mm f/1.2, 9mm f/1.7, 75mm f/1.8, and the 40-150mm f/2.8. High ISO isn't that much of a problem for me as I've already got the DXO for photos and with the 9mm and 17mm, I can get decent stuff.

The problem would be going forward if I were to choose a S5ii as telephoto is expensive and heavy. The X-factor is of course my bad back.

Panasonic's pricing of the G9 ii is just a little high or the S5 ii is a little low IMO. It's dang hard to choose.

5 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

2099

*2199, tax included

Here's the rub as of today in France:

Option 1: G9 ii body for 1899 Euros (I have the lenses)

Option 2: S5 ii body + 20-60 + 50mm prime for only 2099 euros

What would you do?

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Internal eND just feels like the last "big" thing left for Panasonic to nail for the GH series after they've got AF sorted out. 

PDAF will no longer be enough for a GH7. I'm guessing they're going to find a body form-factor for a S1H ii and GH7 that works. The eND will be on both.

The G9 ii seems like a really interesting camera and I'm considering to pick one up. It makes me think the GH7 is most likely going to have some sort of electronic ND filter (what else can they put in it?), which could be amazing. Purely speculation, you get 13 stops DR with V-Log,  great IBIS, PDAF with great features, all the exposure tools with an electronic ND- that could be special.

On a side note, I decided to get rid of my GH6, G100, and one of my GH2s. Also, I decided to only keep my best glass (for IQ) or smallest glass. I just wasn't using the other stuff. I'll let someone else have fun with it.

Here's my inventory now:

An old, beaten up, hacked GH2 for live streaming (I make money with that). For daily usage, a hacked E-M1 ii.

For nice lenses, Olympus 12-40 Pro, Olympus 40-150 Pro, Olympus 17 f/1.2 Pro, Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and Panasonic 9mm.

For small lenses, Olympus 14-42 EZ, Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (two of them), Olympus 45mm f/1.8.

When it came to getting rid of stuff, I'm happy that it might help with my "indecision" when asking myself which lens and camera to pick up. I still have too much though. Anyone else have this problem? I love having options, but sometimes it's overwhelming because I like all of them; they all have something good about them.

On 10/12/2023 at 10:45 AM, Davide DB said:

I see that in the reviews everyone uses the 12-35 or the 12-60 or telephoto lenses. 
I'd like to see how it performs with older lumix lenses. I use the 20 mm F1.7 and the Leica 45 mm F2.8 macro a lot. They have terrible motors and are very slow in focusing. I don't know how they will behave with PDAF and whether Lumix has released FW updates yet. If they haven't, they would be junk.

If you take the example of the 20mm on Olympus, it's a train wreck in video with PDAF and C-AF (at least with Face detect). The motors will make grinding noises in all the audio (if you need it). However, it works great in S-AF as it should. The Olympus 17mm (1.8, not 2.8)or 20mm would be better options.

13 hours ago, Matthew Capowski said:

My existing SSD's were too slow to use with the Ninja V for 5.8K ProRes RAW.  So I grabbed a Samsung 870 EVO which is rated very fast.  Yet I'm still getting the Kangaroo (too slow SSD) icon pop up on the Ninja V when trying to record 5.8K ProRes RAW.  Has anyone else tried the 870 EVO for this purpose?  Same result? What drives are you guys using for the 5.8K ProRes RAW?

Is the Ninja V compatible with 5.8K ProRes RAW? I thought you needed the V+ for that.

On 8/9/2023 at 4:11 PM, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Indeed. My X-S20 just arrived, and have 6k 10-bit 4:2:2 with good(ish?) AF and IBIS in a body roughly bigger than a GX85. 4-5 years ago, it was unthinkable.

But ergos are all over the place - this a thing that could improve. I've taken my GH2 out of the dry box to use it to test the last m43 lenses that I'm selling. First, this thing is freaking small - since the GH3 we forgot how small it was. And, even small...look at the image.

Left dial, focus area, with a lever to switch the AF mode. Main dial (with 3 custom positions!) with two lever, one to set drive mode and other is the on-off switch (in a amazing position, very easy to access with the thumb). 

I miss this a lot.

(and good internal mics - the GH2 mics are VERY good, much better than all the other Pannys that I had (never had a GH5 or G9, though).

I have 2 GH2s. I usually only use them for live streaming, but the other day, I decided to swap it out with the GH6. I "only" do 1080p streaming and the image was about 10% more detailed than the GH2, but by the time it actually reaches the other person, I doubt anyone would notice.

I also love the ergos on the GH2. I've come accustomed to operating it backwards. I will say it does weird things when you hit the display button in the HDMI.

The internal mics are decent, but I think it's mainly because of no IBIS. The GX85, by comparison, is unusable. This is actually why I use the G100 for a lot of stuff because there isn't any weirdness in the audio. This cannot be entirely the case though. My GX850 has some of the worst audio I've ever heard, even with C-AF off. Manufacturers fine-tune their mics to NOT pick up some sounds (IBIS, AF motors, etc.). My feeling is that the GX85 and GX850 didn't have the R&D budget for that.

34 minutes ago, kye said:

I'd be happy to talk about these things.

In terms of ChatGPT, it is predictive-text on steroids with no understanding of reality or logic or anything else other than parroting the internet back to us, therefore it is probably a better bet than most online replies!

Good to hear that there are still people willing to go very in-depth in such nerdy topics.

Yesterday, I tried asking ChatGPT about the notion of equivalencies, a hot topic on forums. It failed miserably. I asked for a MFT equivalent of shooting my grandmother's 1936 Rolliecord. I know the "rough" answer, but ChatGPT kept making mathematical mistakes. I have to say I'm super impressed with it though. As an English teacher, it's a tremendous tool. For filmmakers, it's great too.

My point with my post was to say that Forums could get eaten up by such services if the forum is mainly used for "help in learning". AI seems to be better, faster, and have fewer barriers to getting decent responses. Also, I've only been using the free version. The paid version is better, I'm sure.

Something that I've noticed is that Chat GPT seems to give efficient and relevant answers to almost any subject, including cameras. It's straight to the point, no BS, no political stuff, no opinions, etc. Only, sometimes, it's flat-out wrong. Here are some of my questions that I've asked, only because I was curious:

• Does 4k 8 bit have more or less information as 1080p 10 bit?
• What about 4k 4:2:0 vs 2k 4:2:0 10 bit?
• What about 4k 4:2:2 8 bit vs 2k 4:2:0 10 bit?
• How about 2k 4:2:2 vs 2k 4:2:0 10 bit?
• Does 2k 4:2:2 8 bit have more information than 4k 4:2:0 8 bit?
• Is 4k or 4k downresed to 2k better for avoiding moiré patterns?
• What post-processing techniques specifically designed to address moiré are there?
• Can you explain clone stamping techniques and can you do it with a basic video editor?
• Will shooting in v-log help with moiré?
• Can shooting at higher frame rates help with moiré?
• In terms of detail, can humans see the difference between 2k and 4k at normal viewing distances?
• In terms of percentage of resolution increase, what's the difference between 2k and SD?
• Is there the same perceptible clarity between 2k and 4k?
• What are the benefits of recording in 24fps rather than 23.978fps?
• How are digital cinema files prepared (file format, bit-rate, frame rates) for cinema theaters?

I feel a little "embarrassed" to ask some of these questions simply because I don't want to have others take time to answer them. Also, AI just gives me what I want, nothing more. No need for sifting through info or moderation. Forums used to be a place for some of these questions, now ChatGPT does the job.

19 minutes ago, kye said:

I should also have mentioned that there's a school of thought in film-making that you leave your camera at a fixed WB, normally something like 5500K, and so during the day will look slightly blue and evenings will look slightly warm.  The rationale is that this is how we experience reality, and also if you're shooting in a more documentary style, then having the time of day reflected in the images is also a visual queue that adds authenticity, because the WB of every shot is contextually relevant.  

I actually prefer the predictable look of just leaving it at one temperature. Maybe it's old-school, but AWB makes me grade differently for each shot whereas setting the kelvin, as long as it isn't that extreme, helps with the overall feel. Shoot a night shot inside and we can tell it's night because of the yellow lighting, morning and evening outside are blue; it just makes sense. Do this AWB and you have to make things feel blue, yellow, etc. in post.

28 minutes ago, kye said:

As long as you're not clipping anything (DR or saturation) then it's mostly better to push up the contrast and saturation in-camera because then in post you're not pulling the bits apart by adding contrast and sat.  

However, that's an "all-else-being-equal" type of statement because your camera will likely be doing things like saturation compression etc, especially in the profiles like Cine-V.  In the end, the proof is in the pudding, so I suggest just taking some test shots at each of the settings and see what you see and draw conclusions from that.

Perhaps the biggest problem with cameras and talking about them online is that there are so many tradeoffs that it's practically impossible to discuss something and take all of them into account.  That 4K vs 1080p thread from a few years ago really highlighted that for me - decisions like that impact the image all the way through the pipeline and you need to understand the whole lot to really understand what is actually being discussed.  Doing your own tests shortcuts all the variables, but only for your own situation and tastes.

I've done tests regarding contrast settings in particular. My findings were clear: Panasonic cameras DON'T have more latitude or any benefit from reducing contrast from the default; if anything, it just might screw up.

47 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

The idea was to create a video for each profile that contained every permutation of contrast between -5 to +2 combined with saturation between -5 to +3 to see if there were any hidden gems that might bely the received wisdom of "Cinelike D with everything set to -5".

It would seem that so many have said this (including myself, probably), but when looking at the results, this "wisdom" doesn't hold up from what I see. I've heard people say "the compression doesn't have to work as hard", but I haven't seen anything that obvious to come to the conclusion of -5 contrast and saturation.

54 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you are bored enough to want to plough through them, this link contains a zip with the individual videos for each profile.

That was a very interesting test and it probably confirms what I said above as the ones where the contrast and saturation was low.

I'm almost willing to throw up my arms and say: "the Panasonic engineers probably know better than me"- just leave contrast and saturation at its default if you like the way it looks. Sometimes, we just overthink it.

Recently, I've rediscovered Cine V and dialing my WB to 5000K. I've been just leaving it there and, to my eye, my footage has been looking much better. I have to wonder if "-5,-5,-5,-5" was just terrible advice that some have given over the years. To me, dialing things back in post makes more sense than making "test chart" dynamic range and pushing everything up in post, only to produce an image that still looks likes it was pushed in post. I think there might be something to having the lion's share of the image pipeline be figured out before post. Maybe it's just me. I need to do more tests.

I know that for my GH2, as old as it is, the Vivid profile was doing much better for me than any other profile for my live streaming English classes. Most of the other profiles were washed-out and I looked unhealthy or just "blah".

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

I film 99% underwater and very deep so for me a small setup is paramount.

That makes a lot of sense to stick with a GH5s. Hopefully, the S5ii's AF will get into the M43 cameras. I think it will. It basically is with Olympus cameras. Actually, have you tried the OM-1? I know a lot of pros use Olympus cameras underwater.

19 hours ago, Davide DB said:

At that time we will have A6800 and FX40... 

Those will just be firmware updates of the A6700 and FX30 with a couple of features removed and rebranded as "new". Isn't that how Sony rolls? Mark my words: "the A7S3 will NEVER get animal detect".

On 7/14/2023 at 12:12 PM, kye said:

I know that 1080p HQ is about 175Mbps, and the attraction for me was that UHD Prores Proxy was 145Mbps, so you get the benefit of the higher res without the ridiculous data rates.

Is this what you do? That sounds like a winner.

2 hours ago, kye said:

This page is my reference for bitrates and other technical details:

https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/

It doesn't show all the resolutions, but Prores is a constant bitrate-per-pixel (so UHD is 4x 1080p and DCI4K is 4x 2K) so you can always figure it out for custom resolutions.

That said, for UHD, the bitrates are: HQ is 707Mbps, 422 is 471Mbps and LT is 328Mbps.  

If their 5.7K is the same aspect ratio as UHD then it would be 2.2x the number of pixels and bitrate.  I guess 400Mbps isn't that far off if that's for 5.7K.  I know that 1080p HQ is about 175Mbps, and the attraction for me was that UHD Prores Proxy was 145Mbps, so you get the benefit of the higher res without the ridiculous data rates.  Still, 400Mbps isn't that much more than 175Mbps.

They said in the live stream that they were considering ProRes Proxy, but they need to have enough people who want it (go to the comments section of the youTube video). I'm not really sure they'd do it though.

Thanks for the link. It's quite comprehensive. Personally, I don't need ProRes. I'd rather bake in my noise reduction rather than increase render times.

I'm not sure this was covered, but I have seen some people ask if the GH6 will receive ProRes LT. It probably won't. Lumix USA covered it in this week's stream. Basically, they say their 400Mbps, 600Mbps, 800Mbps ALL-I codecs are equivalent to ProRes LT, ProRes, and ProRes HQ in terms of quality and edit-ability. Not sure how accurate that actually is.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Not a user, but having RAW 5.7K60 and C4K120 and 4.4K anamorphic seems a lot like it's now in cinema camera territory.  Things like the ability of RED cameras to have RAW at high frame rates was one of the things that I thought separated them from the usual prosumer cameras that mere mortals like I could afford.

Maybe I'm just behind the times, but if you were shooting something serious like high-end music videos / high-end docs / low-budget features and had the ability for 5.7K up to 60p (for those emotional/surreal moments) and also C4K 120p for any special effects shots (like if shooting an emotional sports doco) then it makes it a serious camera for those tasks.

It's WAY more than what I need! I would have probably purchased a G9 hadn't it been for the ridiculously low price, new, with 3 year warranty for a flagship product. I have absolutely no need for it other than creativity.

I'm going to watch the Lumix live stream tomorrow as I think they'll say something. Still, the bigger feature for me is the high frame rates on an external SSD.

I feel like there's a little less delay when making short sequential clips. There's a little more delay on the first clip, but it seems to start and stop a little better. Does anyone else have that impression?