anonim

On 2/8/2019 at 10:05 AM, kye said:

When you crop is it to try and create an additional camera angle?

My wife does public speaking and they film the talks but only from one angle, so if you want to edit them without jump cuts then you have to crop to create a virtual second angle.  It's an odd thing but it kind of works.  I'm curious how you use it.

Something more to appreciate in GH5... Recently I had to shot (very fast as always in micro or no advanced budget circumstances) scene of dynamic dialog with two cameras, so I used  GH5 and GH5s - and how much I regretted that I had no just two GH5! Reason is, at first glance, the simplest: fast change from regular to lock IBIS function. Ability to move fast without tripod and with confidence lock 3-5 or more second of steady shot on subject, had, for me at that moment,  the most precious value.... Applied to upper quote, the same function provides great possibility to make fake two cameras angles - because of so fast adaptive position, without too much bothering actor or testing patience of volunteer.

(And people yet claim that IBIS is not useful from professional point of view or that even just ruin shots... For so many more complex or uncontrolled occasions usable IBIS is imo really godsend. Just learn or develop way to make full creative usage of it.)

Probably I'm wrong, but every rumor about higher capable camera actually affects me in a strange way - to ask myself: am I really overgrew my existing tool regarding opportunities to use it, or am I even made usage of its values to full potential, for private creativeness or for real business/competitive market? Sadly, I must admit that at the moment it seems that answer is - no. (If just somewhere exists rumors about more opportunities for me to escape in camera shooting realm...)

9 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

What is far more overdue than a GH5 successor, is where the bloody hell is the G85 successor???????????? 

Price of GH5 at autumn 2019

Some of the samples I collected...

4 hours ago, DBounce said:

For whatever reason the Canon produces a more filmic/organic image that it’s contemporaries regardless of crop. 

Genius! You are really tireless fan

25 minutes ago, kye said:

My theory is that some of us like older lenses because they're less sharp, and when we were growing up the cinema was also less sharp, so the old lenses are triggering that nostalgia.

Maybe, but I, personally, don't think so, or at least I can't approved that nostalgia effect in myself. Simply argument? I watched Tarkovski's Nostalghia 100 times (btw even wrote big 3-parts novel with same title and motto from that movie) - but I properly enjoyed just in last restоration of it, which is, actually, pretty sharp and detailed The same goes with 3 movies from Parajanov that are, finally, very recently restored/saved out from too soft, muddy look. Or, maybe there's some false hope for me, maybe I'm still not too old?

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Uh, they looked almost like GoPro hypersmooth levels. Did you watch it at 13:30? It’s the best IBIS we’ve seen so far, I’m not saying it’s a revolution. 

Well, I sold two gimbals waiting for price drop to buy Olympus Em1 II for that rare walking shots  (Although, in meanwhile I bought  gimbal again and wait it to come from UK  

Yes, without doubt example at which you point is impressive, but it is achieved with 12-100 lens and surely with inner ES (maybe even with touch of work in post). I had some impressive examples of walking shots from Em1 II from net, that's why I wrote - nothing revolutionary, but just in comparison with already remarkable EM1 II.

@kye So nice, never heard of Russian Doll (I had no TV last at least 20 years), now I've just found serial and will watch. Out of curiosity, if I'm not mistaken, you are from Australia, so do you know if anybody made adaptation of Patrick White novel "Voss"? That book is marvelous stylistic achievement and it would be truly challenge for an Malickian visualisation...

So to maybe simplified connection - especially for "painter"-like inner creative impulse, it seems to me that organizing equipment collection primarily around lens choice is good-to-think direction. Why? Maybe because manual focusing better/deeper connects shooter with live visual presentation of world as media, as alter-ego, not just as narrative elements. In that regard, old school lenses are also far better for capturing some sort of characteristic "soul" of impression.

Actually, I found that modern lenses are often imposing and falsify reality in harder way than so-call "lens with character": human eye (with soul behind) also doesn't view object in such sterile way, so it is also fakery of objectiveness and computative-selective precision.

Having said that, I come back to Fujinon zooms or Veydras or manual Leicas, Voigts etc as possible referent points: some of them aim to be  reflective glass in purest neutral form but always checking subtle deformation of eye-perception (that was philosophy of Mandel), some so excellent simulate more subtle emotional "abberations" that, actually, belongs to unevitable psychology of humane eye in process of viewing.

34 minutes ago, kye said:

I sure like my GH5, but if I was constantly having to match it to something else I'd probably like it a lot less!

This is excellent advice.  Lenses are really the place to start with building your setup to deliver the aesthetic you want to create.  

Also, don't underestimate the benefits of only having to buy one set of lenses that can be used across all your camera bodies.  And also maybe things like batteries, media, and accessories, although they're potentially more universal, or aren't the same across a brand.

Also also, if you have a setup with different brands and different non-compatible lenses then if a body fails you can't swap in another unless you have duplicate lenses and everything.  From a purely artistic perspective having a mixture might be an appealing thought, but from a "get it filmed, get it edited, get it out the door, get paid" kind of perspective, compatibility has real advantages.

Maybe as somehow interesting topic for further thinking, during time I made one conclusion - that people  that are genuinely (I mean, from some deeper intellectual foundation and motivation) attracted to filming are mostly divided into two (of course very often intertwined) categories: "storytellers" and "painters". Maybe Hemingways and Faulkners, to say so in anglosaxon's language frame. For "painters", lenses are fingers for touching the world, for "storytellers" far more less so, more just tool for crafting story and secondary to "speaking tool" that are cameras. Because "storytellers" are primarily tend to present great, intriguing, moving story, "painters" to spread and disclose/integrate inner human being with universe. One begin with "I told you story about fabulous world", other one "I show you world as story through perception".

What is relation with OP question? I don't know, I just hope there's always some minimal chance that in my words exists some sense.

19 minutes ago, androidlad said:

If you read the IMX294CJK full data sheet I posted earlier, you'll see the 14bit readout drive has configurable resolution and the framerate can be "overclocked" to maximum 30.

Slower readout refers to precision, not bandwidth as it would have zero effect on the noise floor. 14bit ADC almost doubles the rolling shutter.

Please, could you elaborate it for more mortal users: I'm very interesting just from simple stupid perspective - how much comparatively usable so-call stops it will provides in 24-ish p? Thanks in advance... 

2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I think the most compelling feature in this camera is the IBIS.

Watch starting somewhere at 13:30.

 

But examples of IBIS from that review unfortunately don't look too revolutionary compelling for me.

I can just share experience and point of view, not at all advice. So, from my narrow perspective and goal of usage, I learned that my decision primarily and mostly come from lenses, not from cameras. I learned that I'm so fond to old school manual and cinema lenses, that I can't really find enjoy in modern, electronic, plastic ones without precise MF. For some reason that maybe origin from my character or education, I simply can't use autofocus, although it is great add - maybe I don't like helps and adds. But, I also learned that, unfortunately, I don't fully enjoy in permanently usage of adapters. So, my totally narrow experience say: choose first lens(es), then system. Cameras comes and go, bettering each other, lenses may stay with us for a long time.

Having said that, it seems to me that both Fuji and Panasonic (and BM) today are extremely attractive. Without doubt, we can match them, but why complicate matters and do so? At the moment when I started to be more seriously engaged in video/movie shooting, Fuji had no enough competitive characteristics. Now it is different, although still not quite.

If I'm starting now and have XT3 in hand, maybe I'll wait and see coming of XH2 - it seems that it will be greatly rounded tool. But, I will not choose that if I don't firmly know about most important lens that I'd stick with it - it is Fujinon MK zoom. I tried Fuji XF lenses, but I was not fully satisfied with them, as also with Panasonic, Sony, even also and Olympus ones. But now I think that SLR Magic or Makinon or so make old school Fuji primes and there are also Veydras that give wider angle to APSC sensor.

It seems that new Nikon cameras have to have adapter for using old beautiful Ais's. Pity, but maybe I could digest it. In general, it seems to me that FF cameras are not yet enough reasonable choice for my narrow usage. I had few Sony ones.

The most important reason for still staying with Panasonic is, of course, again lenses. But I'll not name them
 

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

On some level, anything is good enough. It's like saying 16mm film is good enough compared to 65mm. If the price and weight of 65mm dro the way FF cameras are, no one would shoot 16mm anymore.

I'm not sure that example of equivalency is the most appropriate

Actually, in regard to upper announcing post about S+Ninja V future (paid) combination, maybe it is even more realistic to say that one nice day FF will be good enough for saying that practical advantages of M43 in video shooting field become very little (codec quality)  (Let's to forget for a moment minors, as time limit here, of overheating problems, RS or IBIS there...)

But I really can't totally understand reason for that sensor size endless discussion and prophetic trying, especially from people that, luckily, could afford to buy and change cameras with not too much budget-suffering effort. What is so exciting in perpetual claiming that something that obviously works excellent once will be dead, what sort of quasi-competent satisfaction is hidden in guessing what will exists 3 years after Blackmagic bigpocket raw camera becomes affordable at the begining of 2020?

30 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Yes, brightness will match because ISO is designed to make the same brightness across devices. It's crucial that the reading of your light meter match ANY camera you use, so equal ISO should always provide the same exposure on the final image. However, ISO does not equal gain. That is, if you take a ten year old sensor with terrible low light, you might need 12 dB of gain to get ISO 800, whereas you might have a modern sensor that only needs 3dB of gain for ISO 800. And probably that new sensor will have a higher SNR, despite producing the same "brightness".

 

Actually, I've read that also (pretty used to be reader) and controlled it as variable. After that, I think I never shoot above ISO 800  I felt in love with Voigtlanders - I recognized them as my choice, albeit pretty little and compact, they are proudly constructed and smoothness capable, so to say if you understand...

Just now, thebrothersthre3 said:

I did say arguably. Other cameras definitely have less color shift at higher ISO's like the GH5S at 6400 iso. Though when you get to super high ISO's nothing competes with the A7SII at least in terms of having an image with reasonable amount of detail. That said its kind of a silly discussion. ?

I had A7SII - and yes, as far as I could see, you are right! I just regretted why I had no similar efficient mechanism in my mind: to see through darkness as it is romantic daylight.

Just now, KnightsFan said:

Put a fullframe 50mm f1.8 on a FF camera. You capture all of the photons that land on the 24x36 sensor area. If you put that same lens on M43, the same photons exit the lens, but only 1/4 of them land on the sensor. The other 3/4 are reflected or absorbed by the area around the sensor. It's immediately apparent that at equivalent F-stop on the same lens, a smaller sensor gathers fewer photons. There is no "spreading" of light unless you add a teleconverter--which comes out exactly the same as using a smaller sensor.

The teleconverter analogy explains why a M43 camera gathers less light. Taking FF as a starting point, expanding the image circle 2x with a teleconverter is the same effect as shrinking the sensor size by 2x. In both cases, only 1/4 of the original photons land on the sensor, meaning 2 stops less light.

Of course, it's absolutely correct that "sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels" affect ISO performance. We can easily find at least one example of a smaller sensor outperforming a larger one for noise. To use sound as an analogy, it's easy to find two amplifiers that output a different SNR even when given the same signal. The fact that some small sensors outperform some larger sensors does not change the simple fact that with the same lens, fewer photons land on a smaller sensor.

Ok  I'd bet you know much better than me that there are million pro et contra words all around, coming from guys with highest master degree of Physics to serious moviemakers. Once upon a time, my truly humble amateurish attempt after reading thousands of opinions was: I made a several shooting experiments simultaneously with m43 and FF camera (Pany and Sony) with same aperture and same other values. Result: clips had always same level of brightness  Sun of T1.4-2 shines here the same as correspondent T1.4-2 there. Differences and quality? These ones depended of used products, their sensor generation, used lenses.

When UW angle, lowlight lack-of-noice performance and especially zoom solutions are concerned - in theory it is much easier to find combination of solution with FF cameras. In practice, for pro(sumer) video shooting FF struggles and lags in other areas. Just video/movie shooting.

Blackmagic is very serious Joker that produce very serious and earthquake like lessons - but: if they want, they easy can make m43 camera that fully will compete or be better tool than UMP. Simple reason why not: bigger sensor, bigger money. Panasonic also: why not new m43 pro-camcorder? Surely not because of any lack of resulting moving picture quality...

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I mean you could argue the A7S2 takes higher quality video than any other camera as it arguably has better high iso performance than any other camera on the market.

Even that is not consensual conclusion because of strong color shifting and noise reduction as variable in every iso above 1600.

34 minutes ago, DBounce said:

All other things being equal...  yes... and if I am wrong, just use your smartphone and be done with it.

I'm no pro... let me get that straight. But I've had plenty of experience with M43. If size and weight are not part of the equations... please tell me, what would be the appeal of M43 vs APSC? Or Full Frame? Certainly in the case of the GH5S, there is no cost saving. So the advantage is... what?

There is no case to be made... APSC is the new M43. Granted the GH6 might be awesome... but if it is not substantially better than the XH2... I think Panasonic will need to rethink things.

As for BMD... if you can call having customers wait for over a year for their product a good way to run a business, well lets just say I think we have different levels of expectations.

As you can see, today (as never before) so many (mutually compensating) technical variables are in the game... So, I'd say best rule is that there's no strict rule that will mean tomorrow all in all the same as today... and no reason to be fan of any sort of product or company name - too different cases, attempts, approach, cameras, products.

And It is obvious that you are not a pro, but more or less lovely enthusiast, depending of someone's taste  (Unfortunately I'm not lovely at all and to nobody.) But than I think it is nice to assume that there are people with at least equal experience, level of devotion and enjoy that have different conclusions to which they are fond - and there's no reason to easy call anybody silly and an ignorant person to be tired of.

(For example, I could be tired of your perpetual attempts to convince everybody that Canon EOS R image is "more pleasing" or "more cinematic" of all existing similar offerings... but I actually respect it such as a case of passion and elaborate angle of viewing or aesthetic.)

About Blackmagic team... maybe it is safer to say that they are sometimes, or often, extremely lucid and innovative Jokers.  Sad joke, for example, am I

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

I get a bit tired of people trying to obfuscate this simple truth.

This area is a point of confusing for many noobs. So I prefer to speak a bit more plainly, for the sake of clarity. 

Again, calling other people silly and noob, assuming, affecting and pretending that you are tired pure professional - only speaks about comical level of your self appreciation and funny appodictic arrogance.

Are you also in the same state of mind and tired with similar burden of professionalism when call Blackmagic team a "joke"?

Besides, I think there are many noobs with exceptional results (again, I'll be glad to see any of yours as foundation of professionalism) that think different on concerned matter - sensor gathering/spreading light  ratio -  I'd say even starting with the owner of this site.

So, no, it is not simple, but your truth - I'd say characteristically simplified or vulgarized, and actually also easy to be called extremely fanboy's and noob-ish one, because of so easy non including many relevant variables.

(Although the smaller lens only transmits 1/4 of the light compared to the larger lens, the larger lens has to spread that light over 4 times the area.  This is exactly the same reason a 2x teleconverter causes a 2 stop decrease in maximum aperture, because it doubles the size of the images by spreading it over an area 4 times the area of the sensor. Sensor size doesn't have an effect.  Pixel size does though, since increased resolution means there are more pixels sharing the same amount of light entering the camera... Iso performance is a different story. Three main factors effect ISO performance; sensor quality, image processor quality, and size of pixels. The first two don't depend on sensor size. The third doesn't either. The third is related to how large each pixel is on the sensor. This relates to how many pixels per area or pixel density and then the size of the sensor compared to that density. Smaller pixels mean they will gather less light then larger pixels, and in turn less information per pixel and more noise. Noise is the camera trying to compensate for lack of information at a given pixel. Smaller sensor does not mean smaller pixels. Reduce the pixel density on a smaller sensor and the pixels grow.)

3 minutes ago, DBounce said:

These silly arguments might make sense for someone who has never shot with M43, but frankly I've shot with M43 for years. So I am fully aware of the strengths and weakness of the system.  Native M43 glass always seems lacking when compared to full frame.

So arguments of others are silly because you are surely aware that you are aware and no one couldn't be aware as you with different conclusion.

What I really can't understand is - why you must call arguments of others "silly" or such?

Maybe there's some way to give some weight to words: please, show us exact examples where you, say, see that M43 glass always lacking when compared to full frame. Please, show us your utter examples of quality and lets prove that others are silly in their judgment.

20 minutes ago, DBounce said:

The new order will be:

APSC, Full Frame and Medium Format. Those preferring smaller lenses with have APSC. It just makes sense. M43 sounded great, but in practice, you loose a fair amount of light with those smaller lenses... so what to do? You buy a speedbooster so you can use full frame lenses... and there goes any advantage of smaller lenses.

Seriously, of those that own an M43 camera... how many of you also own a SB or are contemplating purchasing one?

I have Voigtlanders, had SB's...

But, please, Mr, when you start statements with "The new order will be"... or "BM is joke of company" it seems to me that it is not quite logical to expect answers - because you are so sure you know everything and in advance make impossible any exchange of arguments.

(Moreover, I must admit that, personally, I'm especially sensible to such attitude in conversation - but, of course, that's my own problem and I'm sure someone else will applaude to such tough-definitive close-the-door words. Unfortunately, I'm so tender, soft, even meek, so always ready to recede in front of such authority... )

20 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Indeed -  the GH5 has been out for a while now and it's still as good or better than newer cameras in terms of key features like codec (400mbps 10bit 4.2.2) and IBS not to forget the low cost. I've got a P4k but it isn't a replacement for my GH5 by a long way.....

I'd be glad to buy and test/play P4k from you - and so to help you to survive from unpleasant feeling of living-close-to-dead-system  

The more cameras are coming I'm more astonished with mistake that Panasonic made with GH5 that so miscalculatingly overshadowed future products... luckily, they put in it that ugly-wobbling IBIS for preventing really professional shooters to use it and ruin their precious pure cinema art achievements.

But, then right from nowhere came mr Sage with his GHa lut and inject in stubborn GH5 vampire fresh blood...

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

An M43 system will always have a have a a size and cost advantage over full frame systems even if it's inferior in other areas. 

I don't know the future, but judging from actual development rate/state, m43 has at least 1, or even closer to 2 year advanced (in comparison with FF hybrids) technology implementation in some very important areas for video shooting. So, it seems that m43 users at least have 2 years for dying preparation after last product achievements - which maybe it is not so bad.

(In that regard it is easier to digest the fact of absence of possibility to buy-it-now Pocket 4k until next New Year.)

I must admit that in the last video - Pocket vs RED - at least in the daylight scene with two lovely dogs, Pocket IMO shows slightly better and more consistent color gradient and whitelight/fallof distribution (although also magenta cast).

28 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

The Panasonic S1 is great news for Panasonic video shooters. It means the GH6 is likely going to be killer. 

Yes, actual camera as news for future product, it is without doubt fresh-ingenious marketing idea!

The same signature sort of, say, putting ugly, wobbling IBIS that ruins shots in GH5, because of better selling GH5s...