Yuan

I would use the GH5 and 42.5mm 1.2 for concerts. The lens is sharp wide open and the GH5 has much better image quality than the G7.

I started with the GX85 and then got the GH5, couldn't be happier. 

10bit Vlog on the GH5 grades very nicely and it has 4k60 8bit, which has been a life saver. 

Right out of the camera, 4k footage from the D850 should look nicer. But Nikon doesn't have a log profile.

The 12-60mm Panaleica for me. The rendering is far superior to my eyes. 

Good news they're not closing up shop, I was looking forward to the GR III.

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

I figured out a lot about the panasonic color science this week. I started shooting at various exposures after reading the recommended exposure for cinelike d was -1/2 (panasonic white papers). I shot a bunch of exposures and noticed once you go +2/3 and beyond there is an actual shift in color. The camera responds best at -1 to -2/3 a stop underexposed. A 0 exposure is the limit before you get the weird panasonic color shifts due to how their gamma curve is setup. There is no real "knee" in their gamma response curves so areas of intense exposure loses saturation and shifts in color. I have been shooting with natural with -2 saturation with exceptional results. Im going to try -3 next and see how it looks

in summary -1 to -2/3 underexposed gives the best results with the lowest ISO's possible. 800 iso is my max

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-bXJQJcWYkVSnZ0VWFvMGU2ZzA

 

Thanks for this insight, do you have any test footage by any chance? I'm really curious to see how it looks as a video. Besides -2 on saturation, do you change any of the other settings?

I've been experimenting as well and I haven't gotten to a place that I'm completely happy with. So far, I'm at to +1 on standard, +/-2 shadows/highlights, noise reducation all the way down and -3 for sharpening.

1 hour ago, Ben J. said:

Hi! I'm a videographer having a really hard time deciding whether or not I should bite the bullet, or wait longer. I know that the sony a7 line just had a price drop, so that means there is a release coming soon in the next few months to a year.  I really want a camera badly right now, but I also don't want to buy a camera that, within that time period I mentioned earlier, will be updated with improvements like color and white balance fixes.  I know that no one knows when these cameras will be announced or released, but does anyone have a hypothesis based on past experiences? Should I wait for the new announcement to see if I think its worth buying (a7siii or even a7riii) 

The reason I'm having a hard time with just going with the current selection, is because I don't want to pay another $3,X00 for a camera that could fix the current problems of the a7sii. And we all know that sony cameras don't retain value very well. Plus black magic might come out with a BMPC 4k mark ii or something lighter than the mini ursa.   

What do you guys think? Is it worth waiting till NAB at the end of April? Or should I bite the bullet and hope nothing new comes out?  I know there is always going to be a new camera coming out, but this is too close of a release for comfort.

I think Sony was supposed to make an announcement on the a7 series last year, but things were postponed because of the earthquake. I expect Sony to make a release this year. 

Depends on what kind of gear you are working with now. If you can get by, I would wait. 

Hey Jonpais, glad to see you're enjoying the portability of a m43 system now :D

Rich, if I was working with a C300, I would have a hard time considering m43 unless run and gun type shooting is involved.

I got into the m43 system for its compactness and lenses. Always admired the contrast of Leica lenses and noticed that PanaLeica lenses produced the same character. The combo that sold me was the GX85 with 25mm 1.4, which was super light with fantastic IBIS. It fits in any bag with the rest of my stuff and it's not a pain to lug around everywhere. I wanted it as a casual camera for vlogging, travel, fun shorts, a casual camera that I can bring everywhere. After owning it for a while, I've been getting some surprisingly good videos and photos with minimal/no setup.

I will still reach for the A7RII/A7SII on serious projects, but now I'm dreading the use of heavier gear with a more elaborate setup. I'm looking forward to seeing how well the GH5 summer firmware update goes, maybe that will be enough to meet all of my needs in 1 camera. 

These 3 comparison articles were the biggest influences for me when choosing what lenses to get for the m43 system:

Voitglanders:

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-micro-43-lenses/

Panasonic Leica:

http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-micro-four-thirds-lenses/

Olympus:

http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-school-online-micro-43-lenses-3/

I went for PanaLeica. But if I mainly shot landscape, I would've went for Olympus. If I was shooting purely for a cinematic look, I would have chosen the Voiglanders.

On 2017-01-19 at 7:59 AM, Arikhan said:

@Yuan

Nope...It's not about the more features of the A6500 (de facto "only" IBIS, touch focus and "overheating improvement") over the 6300, but it's about to get an idea about the Sony (IQ, high ISO / low light, wireless HSS, DR, handling, ergonomics, post production, etc.) ecosystem compared to Canonikon. And therefore a 700 Euro cheaper A6300 (cheaper than the A6500) does the job. If it's the "best system" in her eyes, she would buy a Sony FF, probably the A7R xyz. The A6300 is only for testing personal preferences and IQ...

In this context (A7R xyz), Some interesting thoughts on the debade sensor size (MFT vs. FF/APS-C):

 

Why not rent in this case? 

9 minutes ago, Brother said:

Black Friday meant a 15% discount on the Olympus 25/1.2 so i bought one. It's a pain in the a*s to use with the GX80 since the body is so small but still, great lens.

 

I love your work! Been looking forward to that 25mm 1.2 review for a while...

Given the price range and specification, I think a6300 and 35mm 1.8 is the best option.

But if I were in your position with access to this future purchase for low light shooting, I would try to convince her to spend some more money (or help chip in) and get the a6500...

10 hours ago, jonpais said:

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I've never used AF with Speed Boosters, just MF, and all my shots, no exaggeration, have been spot-on, and we're talking about shooting as wide as f/1.8 (f/1.2 or so after conversion). I just finished shooting a model this afternoon, and I was shooting at around f/3.2 with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and SB XL, and I followed her as she walked, and without any focus pulling, she stayed in focus. So, I would avoid AF C for video unless you've got an APS-C camera, or if the subject is wearing shiny jewelry, sunglasses, black and white stripes, or has strong sunshine in their hair, which Lumix cameras can lock onto fairly easily.

 

I have never used AF with Speed Boosters either. I was talking about fatigue setting in after a day of shooting and it creates more room for mistakes, needlessly.

Using native lenses opens you up to more freedom of mobility, less fatigue, focussing with lower margin of error. Basically, using a M43 system for what it excels in. I think Griffin Hammond expressed something similar for his video work.

I think the speedbooster route makes the most sense if your goal is to move onto a FF/apsc system with your set of lenses in the future (using Canon lenses now with the goal to move onto Canon cameras in the future for example).

But I think even if I move onto FF in the future, I would keep a M43 setup for its compactness. For me at least, the GX85 and 25mm 1.4 combo is just so right when it comes to size/weight to performance ratio (and cost). Besides using this for hobbyist projects, I can imagine bringing it with me on vacation without taking away from my experience, so it creates the opportunity to capture more great moments. I wouldn't consider FF glass if I wanted to have a good time.

I got the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and lensregain first, big mistake. It's just too inconvenient, makes it unwieldly when handheld. Portability and IBIS are 2 factors that make the GX85 great, the speedbooster combo just ruins it.

I'm a big fan of the 25mm 1.4, the last time I was this excited about taking pictures was when I got my first DSLR. Here are some my pics with the 25mm 1.4:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/146178233@N07/albums/72157679142129036

AF is another thing, I remember once when I was shooting video all day with the Sigma 18-35 + speedbooster combo. I was tired and thought the subject's eyes were in focus...but in post I found that a plant near the subject was actually in focus. More room for mistakes.

From the comparisons I've seen, I think Oly and PL renders very differently. To me, PL has a bold, distinctive look (probably because of higher micro contrast) and OLY has more of a smooth digital look...not sure if that makes any sense.

I got the PL because I like taking portraits and I think the lens's character works better with my style: https://www.flickr.com/photos/146178233@N07/albums/72157679142129036

If I shot mostly nature/landscape, I would've gone for the OLY.