Mmmbeats

Interesting. The biggest problem I find with ETC on the GH5 is increased noise, which is often problematic. Will try digital zoom with that new info in mind next time I use one. My main cam at the moment is the GH5S, so unfortunately none of this applies really.

Are there more images?

I'm thinking this and the RF 28-70mm F/2 could be a gorgeous combination. Upside: Shoot beautiful footage for events and doc with no lens changes! Downsides: Makes an affordable camera into an expensive package. Bit long on the wide end. No stabilisation in either body or lens. A bit heavy (but that will help with stabilisation). Tempting!

Okay - I know this post is going to be unpopular to a certain extent, but here goes - I'd love to invest in a cinema camera. At the moment I make my living using mirrorless cameras. The possibilities for improving my creative options and technical quality really excite me. Add to that the convenience of having integrated features like internal ND and XLR sockets, and I would be a very happy customer. However, there is another important factor motivating me to fork out, what for me would be a major amount of money - it's that sinking feeling I see from new clients when they've hired a filmmaker and I pull out a camera similar to the one they take with them on holiday. Impressions count, and if I do spend thousands on a piece of equipment, I'd really like it to look like an impressive bit of kit. The original EVA1 (which I've rented plenty of times, and really enjoy using) has serious styling problems. It resembles a 90's camcorder, and not in a cool, retro way. It might sound superficial, but that, and the build-quality problems at launch (wonky handle), really put me off buying one. I have some other minor feature requests, but that is the number one thing that stands in the way of me actually purchasing a similar release.

Looking forward to comparing this to the (rumoured) Canon C70. Really not sure which way I'll lean, but excited about both cameras.

Also, I'm not so sure there will be another C200. It seems like it was an opportunistic 'right place, right time' camera designed to exploit their existing line for (relatively) high-end RAW shooters. Doubt that has as much cache now. I still like the camera very much btw.

The sensor, if as stated, had been well reviewed, with its dual gain DR extention. I doubt the mirorless tech that people are putting this up against is comparable to be honest. Not talking from experience yet though. Full frame is not a big consideration for me either.

I think currensheldon meant that 6400 or below covers 98% of use cases, rather than that most were actually shot at 6400.

This all day long. I feel like we're at where we were many years ago with photography, when stores were selling cameras based solely on 'megapixels' - the more the better! It took a while for the buying public to re-educate themselves about this. The jump from SD to HD was amazing. I was a big enthusiast and early adaptor. I was boring people silly about it! The jump from HD to 4K was pretty cool, but that's about all. From a filmmaking perspective it added some nice options for delivering in 1080. HDR made more of an impact on me overall. For me the whole 8K / 12K thing is being driven by the sales floor. People like a bigger number. One thing though - 400Mbps can be improved on I think. It's very similar in quality to the 150Mbps LongGop.

As far as I recall, mad-professor celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal popularised these quite a few years ago. They are chips (as in oversized french fries, not what you would call potato chips) cooked at three different oil temperatures consecutively to provide crisp exterior and fluffy interior. Superb gastro tech, for sure - but nowadays as common as, well... chips.

Too late for that, but you can word things differently, place the emphasis on different features, etc.

I also use the GX85 as a b-cam / backup to my GH5S. Works really well. Gives me access to IBIS too! The image is very good. It's feature-packed. Obviously where it lacks is in overall ergonomics and usability as it's a little compact thing, and thus a bit fiddly. But I can squeeze it into awkward places, carry it on hikes and trips, and throw it into my camera bag as a virtually weight-free backup body. Awesome.

I wish there was an external tally lamp that would work with the GH5S.

How about something like Cineform rather than ProRes? Would that be cheaper to implement? I use it as an intermediate codec and it's great (supposedly better image quality than ProRes).

For me the GH4. It was such a joy to use. Solid and dependable. Battery life that meant I rarely had to crack out the spare, and frankly, could have saved money on not buying any further batteries if I had more faith! It was the features and function buttons that got me - the first camera that I could really set up the way I wanted and work with like an extension of myself. Unpopular nomination - but I've also really enjoyed using Adobe Creative Cloud. Yes, the subscription model is a pain, especially when work is scarce, but as someone who shoots, edits, and does a bit of animation, having all of those tools to hand in an instant has been fantastic. Knowing that you have apps sitting there, paid for, has spurred me on to dig deeper into motion graphics and audio. Also, thankfully, I haven't had the technical frustrations that others have experienced. Using Premiere on Windows has been a mostly pleasant ride for me (though there have been some annoyances, both minor and major, along the way).

Using the game model has hampered vr in my opinion. It would have been better had it launched as a blank slate with immersive storytelling as it's mission. Instead it got lured into the commercial space of gaming and overall titles became too gamified. Don't get me wrong - there are some fascinating experiences available, but i think the whole thing could have done with more mould - breaking, rather than trying to occupy the same shelf as games.

I'm just gonna flag up the Plantar Fasciitis thing again: Both myself, and three friends (not filmmakers) have had it. Very common. More or less eradicated mine with calf raises.

Look into plantar fasciitis. It's a very common condition and could be a culprit (though like everyone else has said - you really should see a health care specialist). Calf Raises on the edge of a step with held weights is an excellent treatment for this. I have all but eradicated it using this method.

Always seems like a compromise of both designs to me. Given that a monopod minus head weighs so little, I find it better just to pack both and share a head between them. That has it's own compromises - no quick release swap for example, but seems to work best for me.

Thanks! Great point about the future-proofing.

Yes, exactly. Plus I'd need a new vari-ND as it has an 82mm filter size.

I own the Metabones Speedbooster S, which is the precursor to the Ultra (and identical besides improved optics in the Ultra), and the Metabones T smart adaptor. I rented the Metabones Speedbooster XL. The S has been really planted on the front of my camera for years (first GH4, now GH5S). I do occasionally use native lenses, but not often. The T I got, really as a result of this thread, though I don't like using it with my 18-35 as much as I thought I would. For some reason (to do with geometry, DoF, whatever) the lens just doesn't draw so well with it, and loses some of it's magic. Fortunately it has been great using it with my Samyang 85mm. Turns it into a real telephoto beast - compact and lightweight with equivalent 170mm reach!

So, it's only taken me a year, but I finally did do some tests. These were done in a slight hurry as I had hired the lens for a job later that day. I actually missed focus a couple of times (which is not so smart seeing as focus is central to the purpose of the tests ?). Just a reminder, I'm testing if a f/2.8 zoom on a 0.64x adaptor can give me suitable shallow DoF options for event work and similar. I'll be comparing it to my current setup, an f/1.8 zoom on a 0.71x adaptor. These are cropped and resized for sharing: That's (from left to right) - Sigma 18-35 on Metabones S adaptor (x 0.71) at 8 feet - f/1.2 (I'm going by the reported aperture from the adaptor, which is different from the actual lens aperture); then Sigma 18-35 (same settings) - f/1.8; then Sigma 24-70 A on Metabones XL adaptor (x 0.64) still at 8 feet, but with the focal length adjusted to match up the composition - reported aperture f/1.8 (the lens was wide open at f/2.8). I was trying to see if I could replicate the kind of shot my clients typically like - two people chatting at an event, shot from a fairly unobtrusive distance, fairly wide, and with some background separation via DoF. Next I tested the various adaptors wide open: All shot on the Sigma 24 - 70 A from 8 feet with focal length adjusted to match up composition (left to right) - XL adaptor (x 0.64) - f/1.8, then S adaptor (x 0.71) - f/2, then T smart adaptor (no crop) - f/2.8. So my conclusions - the 24-70 matched very well with the shallow DoF provision of the 18-35. Obviously the 18-35 could open up even more (to reported f/1.2 I believe), but around f/1.8 is as far as I tend to go anyway. The question is whether it is worth a further outlay of £600 or so (in addition to the cost of the lens!) for the additional adaptor. That would be 3 Metabones adaptors to MFT I would own. There's definitely a bit to be gained between the XL and the S (which is similar to the Ultra), and I'm definitely tempted. As the rest of the thread outlines, there aren't too many alternatives.

You just put me back on track towards the GH5. A couple of those are deal - breakers.

I was thinking about getting a GH5 to pair with my GH5S as a backup body, and for IBIS situations. Now I'm considering the G9. What are the disadvantages compared to the GH5? Any potential image quality / codec / bitrate issues, even at 10-bit? I also own a GX80 (GX85) if that is a useful thing to mention.