anonim

I had SLR Magic 12, 25 and 50mm, unfortunately not 17mm - now I have/I kept Voigts 17.5  and 42.5 and SLRM 10mm.
SLRM 10mm is significantly better than SLRM 12mm and actually quite match with  image qualities of Voigts - just little bit warmer in rendition, but that's instantly corrigible in post. There's no known optic aberrations of its 12mm sibling, construction is higher level even in, say, comparison with SLRM 25mm. Focus and aperture rings are not so smooth (i.e. they are calibrated with harder tense, although perfectly even) as those in Voigt's - but, it has to be admitted that I didn't yet meet any other set of lenses with such perfect smoothness as Voigt Noktons, but maybe some Leica R's in excellent conserved shape.
I'd say that I'm very, or even extremely/brutally  strict in selecting/keeping lenses - but I settled with SLRM 10mm as UW choice. It is wonderful lens and its in fact macro focus distance opens so much creative possibilities. What I found especially nice is very low distortion in focusing subject when using such close distance (5cm!). In other words, SLRM 10mm can be used as very interesting and quite real portrait lens! Being picky, I'd just like that focus ring smoothness also match that of Voigts... Contstruction vise, SLRM 10mm shows mature pick level in evolution of Hyperprime line - in hand it makes impression as being made from one piece of hard iron, so it seems that extreme "unibody" robustness is nice word to describe its construction logic. However, it is little bit or two less refine in mechanic operations than m43 Voigts... but, modern Zeiss lenses are even lesser refine than these Noctons.
Later I could extract some snapshots from last clips shot with 10mm...
Yes, of course. Zooms are sometimes indispensable, especially with clumsy rigs. I'd just add that it highly depends of director's pre-chosen concept of directing mood - for perpetually flowing camera movements as choice, actually primes are more practical. As famous examples - Lubetzki in all last movies, being these of Inarritu or Malick. For more static oriented works, where giant dimensions of good zooms are tolerable, they are more convenient.
Problem with m43 (subject of thread) is that there's just no enough fast native zoom lenses, as also with OOC "cinematic" quality. All of them are extremely oversharpened . From adapted lenses I had the most pleasing results (of course, for my criteria) with Leica R 28-70 and Zeiss Contax 28-85. But I had no chance to try that new Fuji...

I was/am lucky to had/have all BM cameras under Ursa line and all GHx.
From my experience I can say just what you and most of other members already know: shooting in raw is, after all, exclusive and most important value of BM vs Panasonic. Actually, in version P2 it may be also and monitor, but if its quality is as P1, than - not. Everything else is unimportant for those who enjoy shooting in raw. Price +/– 500$, viewfinders, battery, rigs, cards, all of that is, I think, secondary... For me, personally, even higher bit rate, even sound.
But - raw, in fact, nowaday doesn't mean any significantly better final image comparing with great codec-science of newer GH5/s - power of raw is in the process of shooting. It still provides more freedom and left much more time for concentration on compositing process and polishing aesthetic before clicking record button. Mistakes of WB, even a worry about light, are completely or much more forgiving with raw. So, for those whose primary goal is concentrated in highly accurate and controlled filming (be it 1 hour on a day or more) - raw means more enjoyable (less painful) action. Shooting in raw is more similar to act of painting once when problems with rigging/stabilization are solved (which is not easy with BM! and that's why I am, as compromise, settled with GH5 ) - someone can more easy "lost" himself in quasipainting shooting because of higher simplicity of mobilized actions. Further more relaxant using of files in postproduction has also, I think, some similarity with bigger painter's palette.
Having said that, Panasonic non-raw codecs are also some sort of technician's art - after using all models in line from GH1, for me it is impressive how much grading potential have 10bit files after continual codec progress/refining.  
That's all from my perspective, experience and equal love for BM and Panny. I must admit that I'm, in fact, using Panasonic as BM with stabilization - don't liking  too much usage of slow motion on narrative, for me might be enough just 24p, and it always turns out that I'm somehow too stupid for proper  usage of AF lenses... so I've tested and sold near all AF m43 lenses, even Oly 75mm... (Turning around mechanical aperture ring also calms me down... of course, with "buttery smooth" mechanic focus ring I'm already in the little private heaven.)
 

I was/am lucky to had/have all BM cameras under Ursa line and all GHx.
From my experience I can say just what you and most of other members already know: shooting in raw is, after all, exclusive and most important value of BM vs Panasonic. Actually, in version P2 it may be also and monitor, but if its quality is as P1, than - not. Everything else is unimportant for those who enjoy shooting in raw. Price +/– 500$, viewfinders, battery, rigs, cards, all of that is, I think, secondary... For me, personally, even higher bit rate, even sound.
But - raw, in fact, nowaday doesn't mean any significantly better final image comparing with great codec-science of newer GH5/s - power of raw is in the process of shooting. It still provides more freedom and left much more time for concentration on compositing process and polishing aesthetic before clicking record button. Mistakes of WB, even a worry about light, are completely or much more forgiving with raw. So, for those whose primary goal is concentrated in highly accurate and controlled filming (be it 1 hour on a day or more) - raw means more enjoyable (less painful) action. Shooting in raw is more similar to act of painting once when problems with rigging/stabilization are solved (which is not easy with BM! and that's why I am, as compromise, settled with GH5 ) - someone can more easy "lost" himself in quasipainting shooting because of higher simplicity of mobilized actions. Further more relaxant using of files in postproduction has also, I think, some similarity with bigger painter's palette.
Having said that, Panasonic non-raw codecs are also some sort of technician's art - after using all models in line from GH1, for me it is impressive how much grading potential have 10bit files after continual codec progress/refining.  
That's all from my perspective, experience and equal love for BM and Panny. I must admit that I'm, in fact, using Panasonic as BM with stabilization - don't liking  too much usage of slow motion on narrative, for me might be enough just 24p, and it always turns out that I'm somehow too stupid for proper  usage of AF lenses... so I've tested and sold near all AF m43 lenses, even Oly 75mm... (Turning around mechanical aperture ring also calms me down... of course, with "buttery smooth" mechanic focus ring I'm already in the little private heaven.)
 

Maybe I'm wrong, but from my experience with these two Sigma's zooms - they are not quite appropriate to provide SOOC smoother image. Or maybe they even are not at all appropriate for such preference - because their concept actually accentuates the same that trait aimed also with Panasonic's inner softwer-over-sensor manipulation. Using of speedbooster just amplifies effect even more.
But, of course, using of filters and accurate grading direction can make everything mellower. I'm sometimes forced to think that many members on the forum actually rarely used modern grading softwares even to the level of at least fraction of their capacities. To put it simply, with reaching enough reality-reproductable level of resolution and DR, near every distinctive inner software/color characteristic of cameras can be replicate by usage of grading process - even by not too deep one. And anybody who tried to learn some indeed hard-to-comprehend software that required whole life to mastered - mostly 3D such as Houdini or Maya, but also to a lesser degree serious compositors - will find that even Resolve is actually very easy, simply because of enormously lesser variables and equally enormously bigger level of subjectivity and tolerable try-and-repeat paths and effects.
It seems to me that creator(s) of this short movie didn't bother/worry with look that gravitate to, say, such of an prestige TV production - maybe they just like it, or they thought it is better choice considering content of movie - of course sharp, aggressive, disturbing, distracting...
BTW I'll be free to take opportunity and write to you what I thought: it'll be so nice if you also make some short movie, or more narrative presentation with Huang... It is so nice and interesting how you and she, despite of generation difference, actually grow-up together Maybe just she as reciting some illustrative verses in illustrative changing visual moods... Or omnibus of situations, it is so close to Eastern spirit, as Kurosawa's Dreams, or different "Monogataris"... Who knows, maybe you'll decidedly help her to become a new Ziyi Zhang...
ZZ about
 

Here is another unique use of ML
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/10/this-short-film-was-shot-at-2520mm/
 

I have recently got for my old Pocket a good power solution. It works more than 5 hours with this power bank powered by 5x hi quality 18650 batteries. You can also put it in a cell phone tripod mount to attach it to the camera. You need to get a LEMO connector to power a new BMPCC4K. 
1. Power Bank 5x18650 QD 185-TY ($20.8) https://www.dhgate.com/product/18650-power-bank-case-battery-holder-output/388633847.html
Size: 13cm* 8cm*2.0cm (5.1' x 3' x 0.8').
2. 5x VariCore New Original 18650 NCR18650B Rechargeable Li-ion battery 3.7V 3400mAh ($14.7) https://ru.aliexpress.com/item/4pcs-lot-2015-100-New-Original18650-3-7V-3400mah-NCR18650B-Lithium-Rechargeable-Battery-For-Panasonic-batteries/32433452171.html
3. Universal Cell Phone Tripod Mount ($3.9) https://ru.aliexpress.com/item/OOTDTY-Universal-Cell-Phone-Tripod-Mount-Clipper-Vertical-Bracket-Holder-360-Degree-Adjustable-4XFC-Drop-Ship/32833106727.html
3. 2 pin LEMO connector for BMPCC4K ($7.3) https://ru.aliexpress.com/item/LEMO-Connector-FGG-0B-2-3-4-5-6-7-9-Pin-Male-Connector-0B-FGG/32836029840.html
 

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

All of that was actually quite normal/usual, nothing too acrobatic special, treatment of normal-aspirative cinematic undertaking: controlling light, choosing proper angles, grading with masking blown-up areas etc.. made by one of the cameras quite suitable for such cinematic-undertaking... and that's the reason why I posted it, as answer about classification cameras as (un)cinematic by some minuscule differences in that or that side, which proclamation made in us impression of higher self-competency.
Because it seems that you enjoy, I'll be free to put one more, and actually more serious/ambitious cine-undertaking example than Neumann's, that may be worth of attention...
 

If you are lucky it might come earlier than September, but you look like a couple of cm here and there will not kill you

I think that you just haven't been around the block a few times in right direction

I think that you just haven't been around the block a few times in right direction

What to say... when I feel shame just to click on Like button
Above all, I'm so glad because of radiating spirit of great devotion and love between all involving crew. It must be that there's no any significant budget, but pure enthusiasm - otherwise you'd not shoot on GH5  
Cheers to all of members - and thank you for the beautiful example how sometimes dreams are becoming reality! (I think that William Ernest Henley and all other unconquered spirits are proud of you

Yeah, even his conclusions are strange to say the least:
"The only way the Blackmagic Design Pocket Camera 4K can beat the GH5 is in terms of sheer image quality – dynamic range and color science." 
But really, aren't all the comparisons of cameras that haven't been even released rushed? 
 

Strangely, you put almost identical words that I already wrote as answer And to add - because, just for one example, year ago Neuman's put their "Dies Somnum" short movie that received here unanimous acclamation for its "cinematic" quality.
 

She is so lovely... and I think there's some serenity of Yasujirō Ozu's style in this unpretentious shots that lure enjoyable smile as result.  Maybe just to add one more angle as variation while she is speaking? I like the most this part/composition because of simplicity and combination of colors of wood/oldfashioned darkblue fabric that highlights subtle naive moves of her timid eyes...Maybe it can be pattern or the best foundation for an idea - to compose another version of little movie as a story of her virtue and virginity as deriving (and owing to) from her antique background...

Yes, I tried them all except last one from Fxphd. I also at the first place recommend fxphd's - I'd suggest, look around for early ones, Fus201 and Fus202 - Fusion doesn't change anything in its base using at least for 7 years.
There's also great old course with Matt Lennard's own company called Fusion 3D, although for Fusion v5-6 (Lennard also was instructor on first fxphd's) - I have this dvd it somewhere, but I can't remember the name od Lennard's company to easy find a link.
Early cmivfx's have plethora of more specific informations and examples - for example, there's still not, I think, anything better about using of particles than two courses from cmivfx. Fusion particle system was so advanced even before 8 years that it doesn't need any add (at the time where Nuke has no anything similar). Their not so long course about rotoscoping - which maybe the most important for Resolve users - is also great, concise and simple.
EDIT
http://www.spherevfx.com/videotraining/legacy/fusion-5-in-depth-3d/
correction - Matt Leonard not Matt Lennard

https://cmivfx.com/products?utf8=✓&category[id]=10
https://www.fxphd.com/courses/#
(Also old FUS201 and FUS202)
http://render.ru/center/center.php?id=30&mp=course
If you have money... (Or, if you have not or coming from poor region, than... take a look around, maybe someone/somewhere is willing to help

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.
As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.
What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...
Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Bullshit! I've done this in the past, it's a perfectly acceptable way to fund manufacturing cost. You spend your capital on R&D, then you do pre-orders to fund initial manufacturing.
One of the more difficult things to predict with a new product is demand. If you overestimate, you'll tap available cash flow which can be painful. If you underestimate, per unit cost are higher and lead times longer because you have to wait to get a slot for a new run. Pre-orders takes care of both of theses. Just order 20% more than your protests and that will be a good first production run.

Nokton for fun today at my place, stills grab from clip 1 hour after midnight - f0.95, iso 1600 (or rather 3200), for my eye everything around was completely in the dark, but not for the eye of mr Nokton

It was the default setting on the camera, UHD 4K instead of DCI 4K, all of them are ISO 3200.
They didn't tape the card slot, so...