Jump to content

Dan Sherman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dan Sherman

  1. 1 hour ago, jonpais said:

    sub $300 for 1000 nit OLED aint happenin’

    Don't be so sure, OLED is 10 year old tech now. Samsung has moved on to super OLED.

    Even this 8" touch screen super OLED tablet is only $350, and it would be extreme overkill for a monitor.



    Display really aren't that expensive anymore!



  2. 1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

    I've been quite happy with my Lilliput A5 on the few shoots I've used it on, would need to be something nice at a great price to tempt me away. 

    The intro screen mentions 3D Lut, but doesn't specify a model. 

    I000+ nits and lut support at say under 300 USD would be really nice imo.

    the biggest thing with all of these cheap monitor company is they have horrible customer support. it always shocks me how hard it is to get something as simple as a PDF copy of the manual.

  3. 51 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

    Yeah, but like RedBull Racing isn't sitting back and watch Mercedes and Ferrari dominate without putting up a fight. So they're changing engine manufacturers... because if it ain't bringing victories home, you gotta change up something to get it up on that #1 podium spot. Feel like Canon's just happy to sit back and see where it goes... (which is downhill)

    LOL, they aren't winning because they've alienated One driver the other is a petulant child, and Adrian still thinks aero is the only thing that matters.

    not to mention, the team has alienated all the other engine manufacturers hence the reason they can't get a good one!


  4. This showed up in my Facebook feed this morning.


    • 5"
    • 4k hdmi in/out
    • 1920x1080
    • 142.5g


    • 5.5"
    • OLED
    • 1000nit
    • 150g
    • looks like 4k hdmi in/out


    • 7"
    • 2200nit
    • looks like sdi and hdmi in/out

    the F570 & T7 have been out for a little while, but looks reasonable. I've had the T7 on my to buy list for a month or so now, once I've seen a few good reviews.



  5. 7 minutes ago, mercer said:

    Most likely, they don’t have the processing speed to accommodate no crop in this body without putting a weird 4K time limit of 10 minutes on the recordings. Look at Fuji, even with a minor crop of S35mm, they still have a time limit.

    Time limits are usually put in place for two reasons. 

    • To skirt some retarded EU import tax laws
    • Thermal safeguard.


  6. 48 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

    Only a small number of Pro photographers have moved to M43. If might be prejudice. It might be that most prefer the FF look. It might be that size & weight doesn't matter much to most but it's undeniable that it's still only a minority.


    I'm going to go with option number one. my wife and I's wedding phographer who is a well respected and in great demand (destination specialist), is a Nikon shooter. However, you would be extremely hard pressed to be able to tell that she was actually using a ff camera in all but a few shots.

  7. 8 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Micro four thirds is in its last throes. When manufacturers are selling FF for less than flagship crop sensor cameras, with 10-bit log thrown in, it’s game over!

    For my work, which is exclusively people, FF has the weight, cost and AF advantage.

    Both cameras cost $1,800.

    Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro - $1,200.

    Sony 85mm f/1.8 - $550.

    GH5 pkg weight - 1135 gr.

    Sony pkg weight - 1021 gr.


    Your lens comparison seems rather flawed, you chose the top of the line m-43 lens (or maybe second), but the entry-level Sony.

  8. 10 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

    That's obviously a self-selecting bunch as on the M43 forum you are hardly likely to hear from the vast majority of Pro photographers who have stuck with FF because they prefer the look.

    Hardly, it has more than its fair share of malcontents, always complaining about Dof, the price/size/weight of pro/fast glass and flagship boddies, not to mention outright trolls saying the system is dead with the release of every camera from competing systems.

  9. 39 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

    Who is going to buy a GH5 when you can buy FF for nearly the same money if you are serious about this stuff? Sure on here the GH5, and the PK4 are better video cameras for us. But we are a .0001% for the total purchasing of camera bodies!

    In my eyes the bodies aren't the problem, it's the glass. Take your typical higher end zoom kit common amoung those that shoot stills and video.

    • Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 II $1000
    • Panasonic  35-100mm f/2.8 II $1100


    • Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM $2200
    • Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS $2600


    FF. is over twice as much.  The sad thing is, I don't think this is something your average person looks into when choosing a system.   


  10. 4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    You sound like someone that is 30 years old.

    I wish, I'm pushing 39, and if you believe my wife I'm 10 years older than that, not to mention I have a general dislike for members of the generation you assumed i was in.

    3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    They left them because they had No Mirrorless FF bodies. Not because it was necessarily m4/3 in my opinion. My sons 5D mk III to me is just a turd size wise compared to my A7s in hand. I don't care how good the Canon is in ML, I Don't want to shoot with it.

    And the GH5 is just not good using AF. I could not deal with that. But sure there are real benefits to m4/3. But I think the weight saving are not as big as you think unless you are talking 200mm lenses or longer. 

    On the m43 forum you will find the legions of people who will tell you they left because they wanted smaller kit. By kit they mean lenses and bodies. A lot of them are doing nature photography, and yes at medium to long end the size and weight savings is substantial. Others are people who do lots of travel photography, and use the smaller bodies and smaller lenses, and again the weight saving can be substantial. 

  11. 6 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

    How many people you really think are going to buy a GH5 over a FF EOS R, Z6, A7 mk III?? About 22 people on here, that's all there will be. There is probably less than 5% of people actually take video even remotely serious. The vast majority of people could give a Rats Ass about super video features, or any video features at all.. Heck of a lot of people wish they sold cameras with NO video at all in them.

    Maybe not on this form, but I know a lot of people photagraphers who prefer m-43 to FF due to the size and weight savings, especially when it comes to the longer focal length lenses.

    If I was looking for something better than my gh5, it wouldn't be a  FF hybrid, it'd be an Ursa Pro.

    Honestly, I think a lot of people who are constantly always wanted to get into full frame have insecurity issues. So many of them have that I need to be a ”real boy” mentality, and to them that means they have to use FF whether it's for Stills or video.

    I always laugh when I hear people lusting after that "FF look”

  12. 7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    For the money a Panny G7 is just too good to pass up. I know it doesn't have IBIS, but for less than 400 bucks at times what is really better. And it does 4K.


    It's also super light at 415g compared to the gh5's 725g.

  13. 5 hours ago, mercer said:

    Nice samples BTW, I like the B&W in particular. Do you remember the lens you used? Maybe I can get by with a G85 as a hybrid then... then I’ll have 4K and IBIS. 

    I went back and looked them up this evening, and I'm betting you will be surprised. 

    The cactus like flower was shot with the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7. Its on sale at B&H right now for $150.

    The Purple flower, red/pink flower, squirrel, and turtle where shot with the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro.  This is one of my favorite lenses and is als0 on sale at B&H for $349.

    The train is the one that will probably shock you. It was shot with the G7's kit zoom 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II. It's not even a very good shot, because if you look close you will see the highlights are blown out in some spots in the clouds. I was rushing to get the shot, and get back on the train before it left the station.

  14. 2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    I don't think I would go that far LoL. But I think a lot of that stuff is not in Vogue like it was back in the 40's, 50's films, crash zooms and all. A little bit of that gets pretty old pretty quick, at least to me, and it looks a bit copy cat also.

    But it does set up who you are Hoping the audience accepts as you main point of Focus, pun there, and draws their attention to it. They sell fast lenses for more reasons than low light I can tell you that, and it is one of the main reason FF video cameras now are all the Rage.


    2 hours ago, noone said:

    You don't HAVE to use them wide open.

    Shallow depth of field has a place as much as anything.      Maybe if that is ALL you do it could be a crutch but it is something I love having even if not used all that much.      Don't forget even a 58 f0.95 lens will have infinite depth of field at a given distance (mind you with this lens it would be with a subject distance of around 120 metres with everything from about 60m to infinity in focus).

    This will sell to collectors and the curious with money and there will be some who would want it at any cost (as long as it is as good as I expect it will be).

    Shallow DOF and wide apertures for sure have a place. What I meant was I have seen far to many instance of shallow DOF being the subject instead of being used to accentuate a subject. In other words people thinking shallow DOF makes everything better. Another example that comes to mind is all the superfluous focus pulls that started appearing after the GH5 was released.

    A few years back I remember seeing some portraiture shots a guy had taken with an old Canon 50mm f/0.95 He was gushing all over the place about the bokeh, and got pissed when people pointed out the model wasn't completely in focus in most of the shots.


  15. 42 minutes ago, mercer said:

    For instance, for shits and giggles, I had a glance at the M50 Flickr Group page and the first few pages had way better photos than the first few pages of the GH5 page... like not even close.

    The m50 has a big advantage in this department, because their are a lot more of them out in the world and thus likely to fall into the hands of someone who truly knows how to use them. I can walk into my local Best Buy and buy an M50, I'd have to drive a couple hours to buy a GH5 in person.

    I'd also say you have to have a decent amount of experience to really get every last drop out of an MFT camera. They can be customized and tweaked in so many way that they overwhelm some people. Playing with the picture profiles and highlight and shadow curves can yield amazing results, but also some horrendous crap.

    Just the other week a new G9 owner was complaining in another forum that everything was to sharp, saturated, and contrasty. After a few rounds of inquires the group determined he was using the Vivid photo style. He then became petulant when we told him you cant just use any style, and the thread went to hell fast.

    for reference here are some shots I have at hand that I took with my G7 which has a lesser sensor than my GH5. Make sure to open them in a new window/tab to see the full res version.



  16. 15 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    I heard it is going to be more like 8000 bucks! Holy Smokes. 0.95 on a FF camera is well, well good luck. ?

    Shallow dof is the crutch for all those with poor composition skills. 


  17. 1 hour ago, mercer said:


    For instance, as you previously noted, the GH5 photos are rather uninspiring and I’ve found one or two photos I like in 10 pages.... whereas the G9 has dozens of photos that look great... now I know the G9 is geared more to the photographer than videographer but I cannot imagine that their output should be so different to warrant the complete disparity between the two.

    The gear is not why you are seeing the difference, It's the shooters. A lot of GH5 owners are prominently video focused, while G9 Users are heavily stills focused. IMO, those that are good at one are not always very good at the other.

    For example check out some of these shots from a person i know of from a different forum.

     Grape hyacinth 4-8


    Choco 4-8 Finch 5-9 2 6K photo test


  • Create New...