BTM_Pix

I'd be interested to see them side by side to be honest. The versatility of the LS300 has had me wetting myself but I'll reserve judgement over the image quality for a while. Yeah, I think this is where they should be heading myself at least in the short term. There is a big hinterland between the SLR form factor cameras and the FS5 etc Thought it would be an area for BM to dominate but they seem to be leaving it alone and going after the £5K+ area. Who knows, there might be a very good reason for that in that people like the idea of a production style GH5 but don't actually like the idea of buying one in the end!

I'd see it more as a refresh of the DVX-200 internally with the lens removed so they could get it into a price range closer to £3K than the £5K of the FS5. Might be easier for them to own a market segment of their own and bring an existing user base who are invested in the mount up with them than try and slug it out with Sony in a market where they wouldn't have a price advantage? An integral speedbooster would be the way to arrive at an attractive compromise if they could pull it off

It seems the quickest, easiest and probably lucrative thing riding the crest of the GH5 buzz would be to swap out the GH4 sensor from the DVX-200 for the GH5 one and take the lens off it. And not paint it red this time. I picked up a used LS300 a couple of days ago and its a very compelling package with the combination of sensor size, the versatility of the mft mount and some smart stuff from JVC. I've had native mft lenses on it (which you can use way beyond the 82% scaled coverage that JVC recommend for mft by the way), PL cinema lens, long Nikon primes with and without speedbooster and small Contax primes which it can magically turn into par focal constant aperture zooms complete with a rocker switch! All with the convenience of built in NDs, physical switches, XLR's etc So it can go from stripped down shot grabber to cinema style to sports and wildlife broadcast camera and all points in between within a few seconds. That type of functionality with the goods on offer from the GH5 like IBIS and 10 bit and so on would be a pretty incredible camera and theres no reason it couldn't come in at the same price or less than the DVX-200. With all of that capability, would the sensor size be an absolute deal breaker?

You know, I didn't really want to get drawn into responding at length to this - hence my earlier self deprecating response - and I don't want to now either to be honest but I'm just going to say I'm a bit bewildered at such a withering put down at the suggestion of how separating the sensor and the processor and being able to modularise the rest of the interface and control to shape it to the function. Surely its better for the user to be able to use the same imaging unit stripped totally down for, say, a drone or gimbal and then built up again to shoot in a compact form for other shots and then even put in an SLR style body because you want to go and shoot some stills than to buy separate cameras? And for the manufacturer, why miss out entirely on a piece of the drone market because you don't make a specific camera for it when you could just repurpose your sensor? Anyway, I'll just leave this here .... http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/04/24/sony-umc-s3ca-block-camera-a7s-ii-sensor-in-an-even-tinier-package-nab-2017/ Sony eh? Clueless pricks.

Funky, as in do bears funky in the woods. I always reserve judgment when I read reviews from people that say the EVF on x,y or z camera is terrible until I've tried it myself as I don't usually find them as bad as people make them out to be, relative to budget expectation anyway. I won't be doing that again after the LS300! I thought my eyes were broken.

Yes, there is this one called VideoLut It has an iPhone version https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/video-lut-colorgrade-video-editor/id1082340556?mt=8 And an iPad version https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/video-lut-color-grading/id1170270352?mt=8 It has a bunch of presets and you can import additional ones of your own. The LumaFusion app is quite neat for editing as its allows a bit more picture control than iMovie. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/lumafusion-pro-video-editing-and-effects/id1062022008?mt=8 Whats good about iMovie though is that it does have a route into finishing your projects on FCPX (and by extension Resolve via XML) as it can use the desktop version of iMovie to act as a bridge between the two. Why they don't just let you put it straight into FCXP I don't know but the path exists albeit slightly convoluted if you need it.

I can't test this out with any real movement at the moment as its pissing down outside and much as I like to contribute, I'm not going to get soaking in the process! Anyway, here are a couple of stills I've just done using the 10-24 and for a comparison a speed booster Nikon 14-24 f2.8. That particular Nikon is one of their so called holy trinity that even has a big following amongst Canon landscape shooters so whilst its interesting to see how the Fuji compares to it at about half its price, this test at close distance and reasonably wide aperture (f5) is not in the 14-24mm's comfort zone (particularly as its on a cheap speedbooster) so ignore the soft edges as its within expectation under these conditions. It is purely there as a demonstration of a non corrected lens to show you how the native Fuji lens is being corrected. Here are the links to the original files. Fuji 10-24 https://mega.nz/#!lnZxkDKA!K_enymlxtptOM9oHg8NAHR-ZalNjpK-U8UZ53WlEr90 Nikon 14-24 https://mega.nz/#!Fm5QAbzZ!PXOFWjOpC6mKM6jDVMC_MPPGls904qqRCe3VGaJrPnw There is also a very short 4K video file of the 10-24 so you can see the correction being applied in video (and the crop factor for those interested in what happens to the X-T2 in 4K). The dip and correction in the first few seconds is a genuine physical movement as I had the camera on the work surface and was stabilising it with downward pressure and moved it slightly. As you can see, this is completely distinct from the behaviours shown in the other videos. Fuji 10-24 4K https://mega.nz/#!ZqBkAJSa!Cif-oIkckiplwdMX4IBe-w5vyncuXIbl48G5ldR-HWc Everything is straight out of the camera on the standard profile, manual focus and no OIS.

That bundle that I suspected JVC might do with the Atomos Ninja Inferno they are now doing. It's $1000 instant rebate and $150 credit against accessories. So it's $3500 for the whole thing but it's a few weeks wait for the 4k60p upgrade. I see no reason why they won't bring the same offer to Europe as they seem intent on the LS300 having a new lease of life. Or an actual lease of life considering how low key it's been thus far!

If you want a cheap and cheerful simple solution for a fixed shot, maybe this headrest mount might do the trick? Its adjustable so you should be able to position it tight enough to the passengers side. https://www.cameragrip.com/hague-chm-camera-headrest-mount-for-cars/

These seem about the cheapest http://www.biwin.co.uk As an alternative, though not strictly a cheaper card, but certainly an way to have cheaper media is to have a cfast to SSD adapter. There are commercial ones but plenty go down the DIY route. Here is some info about how to build one for £100 which will then let you pay less than half the price for a 256gig for example than even the cheaper cfast cards http://tomantosfilms.com/13682/cfast-ssd-adapter/ I suppose it depends on how much media you will be going through in a single day before you can offload as to whether the cost saving (which obviously only gets bigger when you add multiple SSDs) and the form factor are worth it. If you only need one 256gig card then it doesn't seem worth it. One thing to bear in mind though is if you do find yourself in an urgent need of additional media, you can find electronics shops in even most small towns that you can get SSDs from which definitely isn't the case with cfast cards! I'd be inclined to buy the £200 card from biwin and make the adapter as well. For £300 you're covered both ways then and even adding a 256gig SSD you'll still be quite a bit up on the deal compared to the larger branded media.

I'm travelling at the moment so haven't got those files with me to look. I've got the lens with me though for the job tomorrow so I'll take a few frames with it and put them up.

I haven't used it extensively or tested much with it but I haven't had anyone from the agency saying "What the fuck have you shot this shit with?" about stuff I have submitted with it. So on that basis ve got no complaints about it thus far!

That log stuff I put up was with the 18-55

That would explain a lot actually.

They all need to just stop fucking about to be honest. Just sell us the sensor and processor in a housing and let us buy two different body shells to slot it into. An SLR type and a film camera type. Have an esata interface so we can choose to attach a memory card interface or SSDs so we don't get ripped off by external recorder manufacturers for wanting to record RAW or ProRes. Put every single capability they've got in it and let us wake the features up as and when through paid add ons from the controlling smartphone app. Let us do it monthly, annually, permanently or even daily if we want to. It's 2017, people are used to these type of subscription and add on purchase models. And if this all sounds a bit like what RED were trying to do well it is but they never really followed it through properly. If they want to make more money from us, fine, sell us some accessories. Starting with a field monitor again stops us having to line someone else's pocket. And the big one is a gimbal. Who wants to have the hassle of importing some unknown device with no support when you could buy one from the manufacturer that would DEFINITELY work with your camera and provably more effectively because it would be fed data from the cameras own IBIS system. A manufacturer that does this will clean up. Blackmagic could do it (and the micro looked like it could be a shot at it) but the path they seem to be on is the same as everyone else and just making different versions of the wheel. So it'll have to be a startup or maybe an offshoot of RED that remains truer to what most of us believed they were going to do. I hope someone does it as I'm sure we're all fed up having to buy a bunch of surrounding electronics over and over again just to change the functionality. It's like having to buy a different smartphone to use as a calculator and another one to do a spreadsheet on when we all know the underlying structure is the same it's just the interface that changes.

Its difficult to say one way or another but of its constant then that would suggest a problem but when you do have OIS on for low shutter speed do you see the same problem? The only way to be sure is to put it on a tripod and use a shutter release cable (or the app or self timer) to take away that variable and shoot a page of text that fills the frame. Repeat that at shutter speeds from below, above and way above the reciprocal (use ND to keep aperture and ISO constant) with OIS on and off at each speed and also using both OIS modes. That way, you should end up with 9 samples and at 35mm for example I would go with the following 1-3 - 1/15th with OIS Off, On continuous and On Shooting only 4-6 - As above using 1/125th 7-9 - As above using 1/800th Because of the suspected cause of the issue perhaps being the timing of where the OIS is in terms of its measurement cycle when you press the shutter, I would say that you should probably run multiple passes of 8 and 9 as these are the most likely to fail. If you test it in this way then it should eliminate the lens itself having an issue as you will be running it in perfect conditions off a tripod and with a remote release. It will also aid your case in getting a straight replacement if there is a fault as you can demonstrate it easily. If there is no fault when running the test then for your own piece of mind, I'd remove it off the tripod and try the same test handheld as if doing that brings the fault back then you should be able to see the point at which it's happening. My guess is that that point will be test 8...

The usual rule of thumb is not to use it unless your shutter speed is below the reciprocal so, yeah, with a crop sensor that would be 1/80 at the long end of the 18-55. At 640/f8/200 iso that you shot that then you are obviously well above that threshold where OIS would be required and it can certainly have an effect on sharpness. But its not always the case as it seems to be timing based on where the OIS system is in its measuring cycle when you press the shutter, which is why there seems to be conflicting reports about it. One thing that does seem to have an impact though is if you set the IS mode to 'SHOOTING ONLY' then it will only engage it on a half press or shutter release as opposed to it being continuous. So if you are going to leave it set to ON on the lens then setting the IS mode to 'SHOOTING ONLY' in the 'SHOOTING SETTING' menu should give you a bit more of a chance. My problem is the other way in round in that I have to remember to switch the OIS to 'ON' on the lenses when I'm doing video as I very rarely use it when shooting stills as its always fast shutter speed stuff.

Here they are dealing with someone who's asked for a mirrorless D5

I was leafing through this in a bookshop last week and found it pretty interesting. I held off buying it because there is a new edition due at the beginning of next month so I'll be picking it up then. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Filmmakers-Eye-Learning-Cinematic-Composition/dp/0240812174/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492802217&sr=1-1&keywords=the+filmmakers+eye

I'm tempted to register there just to reply to him that the only way we'll definitively know if Canon are ripping us off is if we have to pay by Western Union and Canon tell us their mother is posting the 5DMKIVs back.

I'll give you fair warning that this thread will probably not be most, if anyone's, cup of tea ! And will probably be of zero interest if you are working on narrative projects where you have more time and control and have a broader artistic vision. But it might be worth a look if you are a hack like me and considering doing some vlogging or other quick projects. OK, so, I've got some projects coming up over the next few months (that quite large bicycle race they have every year around France being one of them) where I'm going to be doing a lot more video stuff and the nature of most of it means it needs quick turnaround. I've been doing a lot of testing recently in preparation for this regarding cameras and ancillary packages and workflow etc and one of the things I'm butting up against is trying to find a balance between an image that I'm happy with and getting it out quick enough where it won't have be re-packaged as an historical documentary. Obviously, I need to sort out where the bottlenecks lie and I've been doing some testing today to nail some actual comparison figures down that will hopefully force me to make a definitive decision as its so easy to get bogged down and have paralysis by analysis. The requirement I have is to be able to bring footage in that may not have been shot in ideal circumstances - whether that be to do with location, preparation time and/or just plain incompetence - and make it look decent within time and my own correctional ability constraints and have it be consistent enough to be repeatable to be able to do day in day out whilst traveling and without overtaking my primary gig at these events which is shooting stills. The other requirement is that I'll be shooting this stuff on small stuff like GX85/G7/Mavic/Osmo and X-T2 so there won't be a lot of RAW going on here or even LOG to be honest so this is where it starts to get me bogged down as on the one hand there isn't massive latitude on the way in and then often way too much potential on the way out to go down a rabbit hole time wise trying to polish them a bit. Added to that is that I'm not going to have a massive amount of computer horsepower on the road so whatever I do is going to have to be done with FCPX so, again, I'm trying to minimise the potential for endless fiddling about for that reason as well. Which also brings me to the other issue which is that having everything in H264 coming off these cameras is adding to that pain as well. My options then are : 1) Use a flat profile in the camera that requires a corrective LUT from the get go 2) Use a standard picture profile in the camera 3) Use either option 1 or 2 but record them externally in ProRes Option 1 gives me the most scope for correction but also for time loss, option 2 gives me the best route for speed and consistency (by forcing me to 'learn' the profile and not be reliant on fixing it in the mix) and option 3 makes whatever one I choose a lot easier to shuffle around inside of FCPX. The downside of using the external ProRes recording option is that its bulky, power consuming and eats up hard drive space. The compromise option to keep the ease of use within FCPX is to transcode the camera files to ProRes before they get there and in the case of option 1 add the corrective LUT at the same time. What I needed to do though was see exactly what the comparative times were like using the different options so I can find the sweet spot. Or the least worst option as the case may be. So I shot a 10 second clip on the G7 both in a Flat profile and a standard one (Cinelike D to be exact) internally to the card and then with the same profiles out again to the Atomos Disco Inferno * All files were then copied to a regular USB3 external work drive. I took the Flat and Cinelike D H264 files through a few typical journeys through FCPX, which were 1) Straight through (with the corrective LUT applied in the case of the Flat profile) 2) With a basic exposure and colour balance applied 3) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and addition of a 'style' LUT applied 4) As 2 but with an additional Sharpen and FilmConvert process applied I then did exactly the same passes after converting the in camera H264 files into ProRes using EditReady (with the correctional LUT for the Flat file added in the transcode) and then the same again with the externally recorded ProRes versions. For a bit of sport, I then went for the absolute fastest path possible which was to plug in the SSD from the Atomos and edit the ProRes files straight off that. If you are still awake, you can see the results in the spreadsheet I've attached. The results are not in the least bit surprising as - spoiler alert - ProRes files with minimum fiddling absolutely cane H264 files that need massaging but its informative to me at least to see the extent of it quantified within how I would use it. What's interesting is that the H264 files do OK at the beginning but this is largely because the copying and/or transcoding time of the ProRes files goes against them before they've even got into FCPX but once the heavier lifting comes in they are soon overtaken by the ProRes versions. And the cumulative effect of the multiple corrections needed to be applied to the Flat version also add up dramatically, especially when FilmConvert comes into the equation of course. And then finally when creating what would largely be my target output format of 1080p rather than the 4k timeline, it ends up being even worse. Its worth bearing in mind that this is only a 10 second clip so its not difficult to imagine how alarming that 60 times real time render would feel like on something a bit more substantial. Yes, of course, it should be expected that it will take a while with FilmConvert on it but its sobering to see thats already 6 times real time without anything but the required correctional LUT on it. In comparison, the Cinelike D H264 version is half the time and only begins to be drawn back to it when FilmConvert is applied. And the conclusion? Well the gold standard in this test in terms of getting the fastest throughput is the externally recorded Cinelike D ProRes read straight from its own SSD so thats no surprise and would be the way to go for me in terms of shifting stuff if I master the profile and retain control of the shooting situation (or the serenity to accept that I can't) and don't mind lugging around something that is significantly bigger, more power hungry and unwieldy than the cameras its attached to. The other non surprise is that the Flat profile whether in H264 or transcoded to ProRes is the worst performer. Bearing in mind that this test just measures file transfer/rendering time then the additional time in finessing the Flat profile (which would be substantial in my case) makes this an order of magnitude worse. Which leaves us with trying to find the sweet spot which in this case would be split between Cinelike D in H264 if it was only going to be lightly touched or a transcoded version if it needed more work. There is a balance to be found between the two because whilst there is a time and disk space penalty to the transcoding, it does pay off even if you don't go to heavier correction because FCPX plays much nicer with ProRes files full stop. My conclusion for these summer projects then is to stick with an in camera profile, work within its parameters instead of changing them or ignoring them and take the transcoding time hit at the beginning of editing. And buy more hard drives, obviously. * Yes I know its Ninja Inferno but its just stuck in my head as Disco Inferno now and I'm ceasing resistance.

Should be in the official Quick Start guide that.

I can just picture him sat there reading the sales info for that adapter. "Allows you to connect any B4 lens to your micro 4/3rds camera"

Steady on. It will be dull test footage all the way. I'm even thinking of buying a cat specifically for this purpose. Currently browsing for a PL adapter and might even go mad and pick up an old B4 lens as I'm determined that the much vaunted flexibility of this camera that I've got myself so keen on is going to be taken to the limit by attaching any tubular object that has glass at either end of it! This guy sets the bar pretty high though when it comes to mounting B4 lenses on MFT mount cameras.

Spec wise undoubtedly not but until they bring out the lenses and the rest of the package then I'd still say that for the job we use it for then we still have the better tool for that job. To paraphrase Muhammad Ali....The sensor can't capture what the lens can't see. Float like an optically stabilised 400mm f2.8 and shoot with a D3* *Yes,yes,but D5 didn't rhyme