Bizz

Just shot an ad for a bank using the GH5 and SLR 2x anamorphic 50mm prime. This is pretty much my go-to combo right now outside of the Ursa + Sigma Cines.
 

Oh man...You made me miss my D5300  Now i have a G80. The PNGs look really nice.

Oh man...You made me miss my D5300  Now i have a G80. The PNGs look really nice.

AMEN!!

I've always been a little unsure about this never-ending desire to see detail in shadows. I mean - sometimes, if there's something in those shadows that you particularly want or need to see then - yeah - I get it. On those occasions you need to expose (or light if you're able) to reveal it. But most of the time I just can't se the point. Film, video, photography - even used journalistically they're not reality, where you can see into shadows with your human eyes; they're a stylised representation of reality where you, as the artist, get to use light and dark to convey a 3d scene into 2d, to model and sculpt, to draw attention and imply emotion. Seeing into a shadow is important for a sensor demo but for art - especially narrative art - it seems a particularly silly aspect of the whole to get uptight about.
FWIW I think the OP's teaser is a compelling and beautiful piece of art. His placement of black tones on the response curve is immaterial to that.

Hahaha oh my... I don't think deezid's choice on shadow levels is equivalent to "misspelled words and poor grammar". That's a bit much.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

He said less than 8k

Well, in the future we're shooting light-rays and doing everything, including focusing, after the fact. So: keep calm and fix it in post.
But indeed we're not quite there yet. Plus, every half an hour shot you'd need to multiply by like a gazillion to get the amount of time it will take to edit. Until you know, we finally catch up and tap in to our eyes and brains to extract what we need.
For now though, I'm fine without autofocus, because you know it's just a form of creative control I'm not willing to give out of hands. You're purposely framing shots, adding motion, lighting the scene... focus is hardly any different? Focus is a tool that allows you to tell the story, to show the audience what's important (or not, or to misguide, or whatever, that's the beauty, it's creative control). I mind Panasonic-like hunting, like just pushing past the focus mark and then backing it up to snap into it. Argh, it's just the worst. Or when it just gives up and gets stuck with blurry vision. Nah, I could do without that. But even solid autofocus to me is not absolutely necessary. I don't per se need 100% focus accuracy. Like, if someone is entering a room and sitting down in a chair, I don't need them in focus throughout. It can be sorta revealing to have the focus spot on once the person sits down. Or following someone with a gimbal, you just set a fixed distance and follow your subject trying to keep the distance the same, I don't mind them entering the frame out of focus or slightly moving in and out of focus as the person walks, should you have a really shallow depth of field. I think that can have something organic, something real, opposed to perfect autofocus. But as all camera related tech... tools can be useful, as much as it can be a creative choice to do something a certain way, it can also be when doing something with a completely different approach. And it's like keeping one of those lifesaverhammers in your car. You probably don't need it, but it might one day really come in handy. So I'm always for pushing tech to the next level and having as many tools in your bag as you can. But people have managed forever without this... it shouldn't suddenly become a necessity or the norm. I see these kids riding around on their magic hoverboards... I'm just hoping they don't one day forget how to walk.

I dont post that much because, in my opinion, most of the times i dont have anything relevant to add but i read the forum on a daily basis and of course you should stay  

Unless you will use it professionally almost any camera nowadays will do the job. I had a D5300 (i loved the image) but i switch to a G80/85 because it seemed more user friendly. It was the only thing that made me switch. But thats me! I had a limited amount of money and tried to buy something nice with that amount. A camera is just a tool to express ourselves and we need to learn much more than waveforms and such unless you only want to be a great camera operator. Lets all be honest....anything we can buy nowadays with 1000usd (as he asked) will be good. Very good actually.

Started with a mobile, then a Panny TZ30 and for two years the wonderful Panny FZ200 - everything on auto for a year because I enjoyed capturing and editing, not knowing or caring for exposure or colour or audio.
If it isn't fun, it won't matter what you use. Technical stuff can sap the life out of some people (like me) but can inspire others. 
So advising newcomers as to what camera to buy is not an exact science.

I had a quick play with the new GH5 profile for Filmconvert, but since the GH5 has a different sensor than the GX80, I wasnt too convinced, judge for yourself: top is gh4 profile, bottom gh5 profile:

Hey jonpais. Go here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LeemingLUTOne/ Its a group from the Lut creator Paul Leeming.
If you have any questions he usually replies very quickly. I also bought that Lut for my G80.

A guy is posting a GH5 video as a test so all of us can see what can be achieved with the camera (plus a very good lens) and the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that auto focus is bad (as far as i can tell the lens is manual focus) and the style is not so good (jerky). Ok then...

A guy is posting a GH5 video as a test so all of us can see what can be achieved with the camera (plus a very good lens) and the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that auto focus is bad (as far as i can tell the lens is manual focus) and the style is not so good (jerky). Ok then...

A guy is posting a GH5 video as a test so all of us can see what can be achieved with the camera (plus a very good lens) and the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that auto focus is bad (as far as i can tell the lens is manual focus) and the style is not so good (jerky). Ok then...

I know that with that lens image is stabilized by the 5 axis in body + the lens stabilization but with vintage lens the body stabilization still works, right?

Thanks for your reply mercer. Yeah, as i said i love the image (D5300 = D5500 in that aspect) but in my opinion this camera is a nightmare for video recording and the panasonic has focus peaking as zebras for example and that matters most to me than the 4k and IBIS (of course these are a plus).
Yeah i know. My question was kind of "well...with the kit lens the price is just +100€...should i buy it anyway?"