Frank5

On my GH5, I noticed a strange behavior with Canon and Sigma lenses with the Speedbooster (but not with native Panasonic lenses without adapter): With the exact same aperture and shutter speed settings, the autofocus of the camera is much faster in manual photo mode than in video mode. In some cases, in video mode the focus hunts and the lense won't even focus. When I switch to manual photo and press the shutter halfway, lenses focus immediately. The "synchro scan hack" has no effect. I'm running the latest GH5 firmware. Does anybody have a remedy? Many thanks!

Many thanks for chiming in and the fantastic feedback!

@jonpais Yes, that's exactly what I'll do. I'll adapt the 18-35mm for now. There seems to be no clear replacement on MFT at the moment. I would be surprised if no manufacturer, maybe even Sigma, came up with such a lens for MFT in the near future.

Yes, that would be interesting. From my own experience, f/1.8 offers just good enough DOF for interviews recorded from a short distance as I do. f/2.8 already has too much of a video look. I can't imagine an interview recorded indoors at f/4 will look cinematic.

@jonpais These are all great suggestions, many thanks! In your experience, is the "look" of a 16mm on MFT (32mm equivalent with 2x crop) different from the look of a 24mm on APS-C (~32mm equivalent with 1.6 crop)? Just wondering.

Agreed. The same can be said for the Sigma 16mm tough as well. My goal is to have a compact system as an alternative to the big C300 system I already have, not to replace it entirely.

Or the Mitakon 25mm f/0.95.

It' really just about to-camera interviews here where I prefer to use the 18-35mm. It seems there isn't a clear cut replacement for MFT. Just out of curiosity, do you mean the inexpensive Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 for around $200? I was wondering how that was holding up in a professional setting.

Same here. I have several primes but in interview situations have always relied on dialing in the focal length with the zoom. It's just so much easier, especially when you have space constraints in the field.

@jonpais I shoot the interviews relatively wide because the camera usually sits statically on a tripod and so I can crop later if necessary. Not sure 20-30mm is especially short on an APS-C sensor for a sit-down interview, though. That will be 40-60mm equivalent on an MFT sensor. People often move and shift around, and this focal length has worked quite well for me.

Thank you all for your suggestions. The solution with the speedbooster was my first thought, but it would somehow negate the advantages in portability that an MFT system could offer. If that's the only way to go, then so be it. Jon, in your experience, how do the Sigma 16mm and 30mm stack up against the 18-35mm in terms of sharpness, contrast, and autofocus? I could probably get by with the 16mm (32mm on MFT), since I shoot most interviews between 20mm and 30mm on the 18-35mm (32-48mm on APS-C). Many thanks!

I've been shooting my last two documentaries on Cinema EOS Cameras and relied heavily on the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for interviews. For a new project I need a portable kit with a similar lens that offers the same flexibility without being too bulky, and I'm considering the GH5S. Which native MFT lens will replace the Sigma 18-35mm best for to-camera interviews? I've seen recommendations for the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 and a combination of 15mm and 25mm Panasonic Summilux primes, but they won't offer the speed or flexibility of the Sigma. Looking forward to any suggestions.

I am using the EOSHD C-log and find it a slight improvement over Cinestyle on the EOS M system. However, what I worry about is the fact that the style clips the highlights to the point where the histograms in ML never indicate overexposure. How do you guys expose properly with this style (without switching back and forth between different picture styles)?

I read a lot of great reviews for both lenses but have not found a head to head comparison. Does anyone have both the Mitakon 35mm f.95 MkII and the 25mm f.95? I'm particularly interested in sharpness and color rendering. Thanks for any feedback or hints!

I think I "fixed" it. Smart rendering only seems to work on direct export, not with Media Encoder. Encoding time is still not as fast as a file transfer, like Adobe claims, but takes about 2 minutes for a pre-rendered 1-minute clip.

I am setting up a smart rendering workflow on Premiere Pro CC 2015 on Windows 7. For the intermediary codec, I would like to use Cineform YUV 10-bit. The sequence settings in Premiere Pro CC 2015 allow me to set Cineform YUV 10-bit as the preview format. Rendering effects this way works and previews fine. However, when I export the sequence with "match sequence settings" and "use previews" enabled, the renderer still takes 45 minutes for a 1 minute file with a rendered denoiser effect. Smart rendering does not seem to work. Is anyone using Cineform successfully with Premiere Pro CC 2015 on Windows in a smart rendering workflow? What could I try to make it work? Many thanks for your suggestions.

OK, interesting. I thought perhaps the 70D or 80D were improvements. The suggestion with the C100mkII or C300 is great. Many thanks.

Hello, which Canon APSC camera exhibits in your opinion the best low light performance for full HD video? For instance, low noise in shadows, least banding, etc. For full frame, most would probably recommend the 5D and 6D, but I am looking for a crop sensor alternative with similar quality, colors and bitrate. Thanks for any input!

This is excellent feedback, many thanks to you all for the encouragement. It is obviously time to upgrade and I'm looking forward to shooting the new project on a rental C100ii or C300ii.

Thanks for your feedback. I shot with the Ms mainly out of habit and because I know exactly how to achieve with them what I want. It's time to upgrade after all. But the form factor is/was amazing.

Many thanks, I feel the same. It will definitely be worth upgrading perhaps to a C100, but I still wonder if anyone has pulled off the production of a commercial doc on the EOS M.

Hi there, I am now on my third short documentary. My films usually combine conservatively shot interviews with handheld b-roll of everyday subjects, such as light reflecting in a cup of coffee etc. I am an audio pro by training, so my sound is always superb. I am shooting everything with the EOS M1 and M2 and the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Lens on Cinestyle, loving the portability and unobtrusiveness. I have a professional lighting person for the interviews and grader for all footage. Feedback so far for the overall quality of the work has been nothing but excellent and nobody assumed the films were shot on consumer cameras for $300 each. A TV channel has offered to broadcast my latest work for which I am in preproduction. Their tech specs require footage to be recorded with at least 100Mbit/s on a "professional video camera" and require a special permission to use DSLR footage. The EOS M1 and M2 that I used up to now will not fulfill this requirement. I dread the thought of giving up the experience and form factor of the M, so my question: Has anyone here shot a documentary with the EOS M that was broadcast or is the attempt to do this plain silly? Many thanks for your feedback.