kye

LOL, every time I comment about camera sizes there's always someone who replies and says that in comparison to the size of the universe that the thing we were talking about is much smaller and therefore must be tiny and any size discussion must be meaningless, but that "everything is relative" approach doesn't really work when you apply it to the real world, where things are judged according to size, both in good and bad ways. It's about context, and this is a thread about the BMMCC, which is literally a cinema camera you can mount on a helmet: The P4K is huge for a consumer camera, just like the GH5 and A7S3 and Canon 5D are as well. Try putting a P4K on your helmet, or try putting a bunch of them into a vehicle and see how far you get. BTW, the BMMCC gets radically more battery life than a P4K as well. Colour science is definitely a thing, and in case you don't know, the Alexa revolutionised the look of digital by making it look like film, which was a huge driving force in the widespread adoption of digital in Hollywood and other high-end cinema markets. At the time this was the absolute bleeding edge of film emulation, but we've gotten a lot better at that look now and this has become the dominant look of all medium-high budget TV and movies. Yes, I have seen that look from other cameras, but I have never seen that look from any camera apart from the OG BMPCC or BMMCC unless there was a professional colourist involved. If you're happy with a large camera that shoots Sony-looking images then that's fine, and is a matter of taste, but this thread is about tiny cinema cameras that have an image that is remarkably like an Alexa, which the P4K is most definitely not.

I'd suggest that you wouldn't need to get a LUT. I've graded a small amount of Alexa footage and my impression was that the OG BMPCC / BMMCC was just as easy to grade and get good result from as Alexa footage. It's really hard to describe how effortlessly the footage responds to grading, it makes GH5 footage feel like there's something wrong with it in comparison. It's also hard for people to imagine that the Alexa images aren't instantly magical, unless you've worked with them before, but poorly shot Alexa footage looks basically just like poorly shot footage from almost any other camera. If you want a match that would survive a forensic investigation then there are some LUTs from Juan Melara that translate the P4K or P6K to Alexa colours, which look like they do a great job and Juan is obviously a very talented colourist so I don't doubt that he would have done a meticulous job. But to re-iterate the benefits of the OG BMPCC / BMMCC, you can get an Alexa-like image just converting the colour space to 709, but it takes a serious colourist to get Alexa-like image from the P4K/P6K. I'd be tempted by the P4K / P6K because those LUTs are available from Juan, but the form factor is just absolutely ridiculous, the RAW is crippled, and they're quite expensive too. I'd shoot 1080p Prores HQ because it is downsampled form the whole sensor and would avoid aliasing issues of the OG cameras. You really need a 2.5k sensor to get true 2K, so that's potentially the only weakness of these cameras. But, if size matters, at all, in your work then there's no comparison:

300EU is a steal. Had you done the background research, you wouldn't have waited one minute, let alone one day. It may seem like that's a lot for an older camera, but you're buying the image. Used Alexas are still $10K because you're buying the image, so spending 3% of that on a camera that can be perfectly intercut with an Alexa. The P4K is a great camera, but it's not the same as the OG BMPCC / BMMCC. When you grade the OG BMPCC / BMMCC for two minutes you get something that looks like film, when you grade the P4K for two minutes you get something that looks like the Sony a7s3. It is possible to grade the P4K to match the OG BMPCC / BMMCC, but if you have that level of skill then you may as well buy almost any camera and grade it to look like whatever you want, because both tasks are about the same level of difficulty.

I have it and for my shooting in uncontrolled situations with varying WB I couldn't get good results out of the LUT at all unfortunately. Maybe in controlled shooting it would be different, but it was too fragile to work in the situations I work in. The BMMCC, however, gets spectacular colour right out of the gate. It's literally giving me better colour after a 2 minute effort than I could get from my GH5 with hours of effort, regardless of the colour profile and use of LUTs, CSTs, of manual grading. I believe people think about cameras in the wrong way. The conversation is about "how good is this camera" or "how good is the image from this camera", and the answer to that is almost always "as good as the operator". But some cameras are really easy to get great results from, and others are almost impossible to work with and only the best operators in the world can get great results from them. The question should be "how good is the image from this camera when used by an above average user under normal circumstances and with a moderate amount of effort in post?". In this instance, the OG BMPCC / BMMCC have to be some of the best cameras ever made.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, and the one that people just never seem to understand, is that if the AF doesn't know what to focus on then it's useless. People forget that focusing is more than just aligning the plane of focus with an object in frame. Sure, face-detect is pretty good these days, and if you're doing an interview shoot with a wider-aperture lens then having it track the person as they lean forward sometimes is great. But it's the equivalent of having a focus-puller who only knows how to either: focus on the nearest face, or focus on the nearest object. That would get you fired immediately in that job, and yet, when a camera comes along with that limited skillset, it's red carpet and balloons time because it's problem solved!

Neither can most "journalists" who write articles for news sites.... if you're expecting higher professional standards from a guy talking about cameras on YT than we get from people writing about foreign policy, well, I'd suggest that's... unrealistic.

I was more referring to when you want to change subjects during a shot. Face-detect-PDAF is pretty good but a lot of what people are shooting isn't covered by that. Take a common example from my shooting, which was one of my kids playing with a claw-machine during a family trip. The sequence of the shot was: (focus on kid / mid-following-shot) kid walks up to claw machine, puts token in (focus on kid / push-in-shot by walking forwards) kid starts operating machine and hits the go button (focus on claw / mid-shot) claw goes across and down, picks up toy (focus on kid / reaction-shot) kid looks surprised then goes "yeah" (focus on claw / mid-shot) claw drops toy into slot (focus on kid / mid-shot) kid picks up toy from prize slot (focus on kid / pull-out to kid and family members shot) kid shows toy to family members (focus on family members / pull-out further to group-shot) family members react to kid and cute toy (focus on kids sister / close-shot) sister cuddles very soft and fluffy toy I did that shot in one take, there was no warning as it started by me following a kid in an arcade armed with a token in their hand, shallow DoF to isolate the background and random strangers (plus the bokeh looks great). These shots aren't every shot, but they're common and I could easily lose count with these on a typical trip, with many of these per day. AF isn't even in the same universe as being able to do this, and this is essentially the whole job of what I do. I agree. One of the challenges is that we, as consumers, are exposed to tech from all sorts of places which is very innovative, and camera companies are essentially companies that made clockwork, and then electrified clockwork products based around disposable chemistry until only decades ago. The cultural shift for them to start thinking like Apple is radical. Think about how long it will take for their stills and video departments to get in alignment, when Apple never had separate departments. They will continue to release the least innovation and features that the market can bear until they go bankrupt. That's the consequence of capitalism and the human condition.

Interesting to hear you're getting good matching with the S1. I'd be curious to see any images you're willing/able to post.

Great to hear! If there's any before/after you're willing to share I'd be curious to see it. I don't recall ever seeing other people doing this stuff, just me playing around with things. There's likely to be a reasonably good average grade that would work across all shots that you can use while editing, and then fine-tune once you're almost at picture-lock. That avoids you working on shots that don't end up in the final edit, but also means you're not working with the unprocessed footage, which can be distracting. If that's a true stream of the data on the tape then that should be as good as it gets. Then the next steps would be how to de-interlace and process it further. I seem to recall several ways to de-interlace, either with their pros and cons. One was to have each frame made up of alternating lines from the current and previous frame, and the other was to just duplicate the lines from the current frame. The former had more apparent resolution but had a horizontal blind type of effect on movement, and the latter had less resolution and was prone to flickering, especially on hard edges that ran horizontally. Choosing the overall approach might be subject-dependent, and maybe even shot dependent? I'm curious to hear how you go with this as well.

I never thought about using the joystick. I guess you navigate it around and then click it when you want the camera to re-focus? Once I learned to manually focus and realised I liked the look even more, I got manual lenses and haven't bothered with AF, until recently. Ironically, since I got the 12-35/2.8 to have an OIS lens with the OG BMPCC, I've started testing the AF-S to get an initial focus before I hit record. It's funny because having a wide f2.8 lens is the hardest to manually focus using the tiny screen. Slower lenses are easier to focus because it's not so critical, and faster lenses are easier to focus because it's clearer what's in focus and what isn't because the OOF areas are a lot more OOF. Thanks! It's tough to make a compact setup that isn't a head-turner in public if you have to have a monitor, but putting it behind the camera on a flash bracket seems to work well. I think I still prefer the OG BMPCC + 12-35mm f2.8 + Black Promist filter combo. Still sorting out audio for that setup though, the preamps are... not great.

True! I thought the Micro matched pretty well to the Alexa? Unless you're talking about 4K+ Alexas and shooting a hyper-modern look with the latest high-end cine lenses? This is a slight aside, but I've been seeing the promo videos they have for their new Signature Zoom lenses and dear god are they going for a sharp look with those videos! I understand why of course, everyone who can afford to use ARRI knows you can soften lenses up in post of course, but I was thinking how I wasn't really a fan of that particular treatment! If it was Christmas and my birthday and I won lotto too, I'd wish for a BM Pocket Cine Camera in the P2K form factor with an updated 2.8K sensor with the same colour science, and set to the global shutter mode rather than rolling shutter. Still, the P2K and M2K (Micro) are pretty amazing for what they cost and how big they are.

How do you hold the camera when you're using touch-AF? You could hold the camera in your fingers and use your thumb on the touchscreen to focus, but that's not a very ergonomic approach. Typically the manual focus approach is like the below, only with the bottom hand slid further forwards and the other hand holding the other side of the camera. The below is a slightly unusual rig, as normally I'd use my left hand to hold the weight and focus and my right on the camera grip.

That doesn't sound right. I'd maybe reach out to some experts, like on the LiftGammaGain forums perhaps (colourists used to do a lot of DI stuff before everything went digital) and confirm. I hear those guys talking about the older digital formats and there were so many gotchas in there that it's almost amazing that anyone got a good result! Yeah, because it's a personal project you can really take your time and let your subconscious process the footage in the background as you do other things. I'm always amazed at how a good editor can put little moments together that aren't related, but compose a thread that wasn't literally there, but somehow captures the feeling more than a 'correct' version. Like when Herzog said “Facts do not constitute the truth. There is a deeper stratum.” In a way, you're lucky that it's miniDV because you're less likely to get swayed by things that look good but aren't meaningful. I'm sure that if I had a 1DX2 and fast primes I'd be tempted to include too much 120p B-roll in my edits like McKinnon does, so you've side-stepped these challenges! Perhaps calling it degradation was misrepresenting it. Think of it like this... reality doesn't have compression artefacts, it's not 'sharp', it's not grainy, and smooth surfaces are not featureless, but the miniDV footage has introduced these things due to its limitations. Your job is to make the footage look the most like reality was, or the most how it felt. You've definitely got license to take some creative liberties to make it more like poetry and less like prose! If you don't blur the footage at all, you get all the nasties and all the content in the footage. If you blur it a lot then you get no nasties and very little of the content, but there will be a little sweet spot where each effect hides much more of the nasties than the original footage, and that's what you're aiming for. I'd suggest setting up a bunch of effects and going through them one by one at a sensible viewing distance and fine-tuning their parameters and opacity by eye, trying to make the footage look the most like a window to being there, or of a Hollywood film of being there (or whichever aesthetic you prefer!). By adjusting those parameters by looking at the monitor and not the control panel you may find that effects that aren't worthy get set to the sweet spot of zero opacity. Make sure you're always turning each effect on/off to make sure you're improving the image, as it's easy to get lost and get used to something, but when watching things we can also easily get used to quite strong looks as well, so don't shy from making it stylised. I'd make a few passes through each effect to optimise each one in combination with the others. A cool point of reference is to look from the screen to the other objects in the room, so effectively using reality as a reference. Comparing to reality will quickly sort out how sharp/unsharp things should be etc. Save that as a preset, reset them all and do the same exercise a few days later. Do it a few times. Then you can compare them and see which you liked, and maybe blend them together. You are trying to create a look that looks 'right' and the original footage looks awful in comparison. When I've done this (like in the example I posted above) I got to a point where the final grade seemed like footage from a Super-16 film camera and the original footage seemed like someone had applied a bunch of awful distortions for some reason. That's a good place to end up. It's useful to review some older film captures as a reference too. They were blurrier than you think, but never looked offensive, so it's a good look to go for. It could be due to the interlacing, but it could also be due to any capture issues you're experiencing. Once you confirm your capture then just see what's least offensive.

Upgrade your A cams!

Just found this, which is absolutely spectacular. If you think you need to shoot in 4K, think again. Simply wonderful.

So now instead of having a dedicated person to pull focus, or giving the job to the camera operator, you can have the camera automatically focus for you..... only, it just requires a dedicated person to tell the camera where to focus, or the camera operator has to do it. The only problem that solves is if you can't actually pull focus properly, which isn't that difficult a skill to have in most situations. Of course, if you're a run-n-gun operator then it also means you can't put the weight of the camera into your palm, wrapping your hand around the lens, which is the natural place for a manual focus ring, and steady the camera using the other hand on a hand-grip. Instead you have to carry the full weight of the camera with the hand-grip hand in order to touch the tiny little screen in the right place with a outstretched finger when you want to pull focus. Sure, if you're on a tripod then it's relatively easy, but then, so would just turning the focus control on the lens... It sounds like it solves the easy-to-solve part of focusing and works well when focusing wouldn't be difficult but doesn't help much in situations where focusing is actually more difficult. I think mostly you guys are missing the point with this tech stuff. PDAF is great at focusing perfectly, but can't reliably choose what to focus on. The times when focusing perfectly is difficult for manual focus is when subjects are moving, but that's actually the time when focusing perfectly matters least, because the subject is normally moving in frame and so there will be motion blur with 180 shutter, and often camera movement as well. TV shows and movies regularly have the focus catch up to the person when they come to a stop after running towards or away from the camera. In a way it's actually nice that for fast-paced movement they're in and out of focus for their transition because typically the composition of such a shot is that: you have the person in focus and their character is focusing on their world and something causes their reaction the person is now reacting and aren't in focus and their character is in the midst of moving and isn't seeing clearly either the person comes to a halt and then comes back into focus at the same time as the characters perception comes into focus and they reevaluate their position after having reacted That's actually a very common shot in narrative because it shows action and re-action, which having a focus puller not do it perfectly actually helps us identify with the character. I think it's the kind of thing that sounds much more useful in the design room, or lab, or in forums on the internet, than it does in real-life for lots of people. Sure, it's probably a great feature to have. But saying that a camera needs it as a feature is just buying into the marketing BS, or showing a lack of understanding about shooting, or both. I used to think AF was a must, and I was very vocal online about it too. But I challenged myself to manually focus and now I enjoy it more, get better results, and it gives me far more flexibility in equipment choice and aesthetic as well. and I'm just a guy who makes home videos, so if I can manually focus an f0.95 lens, surrounded by the real world where things happen without warning then really there's not much excuse! I think half the people online talking about AF as a critical feature must be shooting like this....

Oh yeah, and a nice highlight rolloff can hide clipped highlights, and if the footage is 30p you can slow it down to 24p and get a bit of slow-motion for free, which I also did on the above footage.

You will struggle to get anything that looks 'great', so I would suggest a three-pronged approach: Content. If ever there was a time to make the grade support the content rather than be a spectacle in itself, this is it. One trick that often works is to go carefully shot by shot and ensure that the viewers attention is on the right thing / person, and that is often done by raising the luma of the area so it stands out. Typically this is large and very soft oval power-windows the way that you'd simulate a vignette, and is often a combination of inside-outside effects where the subject is pulled up a bit and the outside is pulled down a bit. If you do it softly enough then it should be imperceptible, but will put the focus on where it needs to be, distracting from the grade entirely. As there's no chance of making a 'great' grade, make one that is the least offensive. Do this by working out the weakness of the footage and then compensating for that. For example, in low DR 8-bit footage, often the mid-tones are stretched apart, so you could try lowering the overall contrast and essentially pulling the bits closer together. This will raise the shadows, and maybe this will give a nice vintage look, but maybe not, and maybe you'd be better off actually pulling the levels down a bit and compressing the blacks (and whatever compression nasties are there). You'd have to play with the footage to see where the issues are. It's worth experimenting with reducing saturation, which makes all footage look higher end, but may not be the aesthetic you're looking for. Degrade the footage to hide its sins. I've shot lots of very low quality footage over the years, including SD, bad codec stuff, and have had a lot of mileage from upscaling it, blurring it and adding grain. Upscaling it gives you more pixels to work with, and your timeline should absolutely be higher resolution than the original footage. Blurring at very small radius' is designed to soften the jagged compression artefacts. Blurring at slightly larger radius' will smooth gradients, and much larger blurs (essentially adding diffusion in post) will smooth over the image the same way as diffusion filters do. I'd suggest the smallest blur be at 100%, and the larger ones be semi-transparent over the image. Adding grain will disguise the fact you've blurred the footage, and will give an analog feel, which is far more preferable than having an early-digital feel. For this step I'd encourage you to grade at a standard viewing distance rather than close-up / pixel-peeping as the effects are easy to over-do. If you're going to upload it, do a version specifically that takes into account the compression that will be applied, and you'll have to add lots more grain (for example) and probably experiment with multiple uploads to fine-tune it. Here's an example of my previous attempts at making the best of low quality footage. Final: Original: Best of luck - editing old footage can be fun and a trip down memory lane. Enjoy the process!

I disagree. I'm a dad who makes travel videos of my family while we're on holiday and shoots my kids sports games - I'm about as video as it gets! I've found that some aspects of what cinematographers do fits with how I shoot, and some really doesn't at all, like, AT ALL. However, I've never seen another YouTube reviewer who reviews "hybrid cameras" get it so wrong as they did on the XC10 review. I've since moved on from that camera, and I found that actually it didn't suit my needs at all, so I don't have rose-coloured glasses about it in the slightest. I know this because before I watched their review I had watched literally hundreds of camera reviews online from dozens and dozens of YouTubers (gotta have a hobby!), but when I watched their XC10 review a strange thing happened. They said some things that made me double-take. My reaction wasn't like "oh, that seems plausible but I don't care" and it wasn't "that doesn't apply to how I shoot" which is common in other reviews.. it was "they're describing exactly how I shoot, and they're reviewing the camera that I own, and they're saying that this feature won't work for me, and yet, I've used exactly that camera in that situation (or worse) and found it fine - WTF is going on with this review". It stood out as being so fundamentally wrong that at first I didn't know what to make of it. I re-watched it the next day to make sure I didn't mis-interpret them, or to look for signs that it got messed up in editing (which I would imagine can happen when you're churning out videos), but there were no signs of that. I began to think about it, trying to understand why they'd think such a strange thing, and then when I was reading an article about cinema cameras from a cinematography site I realised that they said what they said because they had a fundamental misunderstanding about cinematography and what shooting on a set is like. I realised they only understand film-making from the perspective of filming a YT video. Then I re-watched their review and everything fit, that they'd get most things right but the critical thing so wrong. Mostly YT and shooting a controlled production would be basically the same, but there are things about the equipment that differ, for example cine cameras not needing very good high-ISO performance because everything can be lit or catered for with crazy fast primes because the set revolves around the camera and not the other way around. If you only learned about making YT videos you would get most of what happens on set correct and only a few specific things wrong, but you would get them spectacularly diametrically wrong which they did. So I am actually very appreciative they made that video. I learned a lot from it. I learned that not everyone who makes videos knows about film-making (I was involved in film-making before I got into shooting video myself, so that wasn't something I anticipated). I learned that my shooting style was actually a mixture of how you'd shoot a narrative, how you'd shoot a doc, and how you'd shoot a guerrilla available light run-n-gun home video. .....and I learned that Chris and Jordan didn't know enough about film-making to be able to provide reliable advice to a guy who makes home videos. And no-one else involved in their entire corporate channel knew or cared! You know that you're in trouble when your cine camera review isn't informed enough for the home video dad! Anyone can say anything online, and popularity certainly doesn't indicate reliability of information, which is definitely the case here.

I would phrase it differently. I know a few people who do real research before making large purchases, and I think it's more like being able to read through the reviews to see the truth. In that sense, we practically cover everything in salt rather than just a small amount of seasoning... Basically, you want to know the strengths and weaknesses of the product. The approach seems to be: If a review is emotional, either good or bad, ignore them. They obviously either have an axe to grind, or are euphoric, in either case they're not solely focused on seeing the truth, so although they might believe what they say, they won't be seeing clearly. Look for known reference points. If someone has reviewed something you don't like positively, then that's a warning, or vice-versa. It might be an issue with their bias, or a lack of intelligence, lack of thoroughness, or simply a misalignment of what they value compared to what you value. Taste comes in here. I look for music reviewers who share common taste - if you don't like the taste of whiskey then it doesn't matter if it's the best whiskey in the world, you still won't like it. Look for meaningful criticisms. No product is perfect (you can't please all the people all the time), look for criticisms in a review, and only accept real ones, rather than token or BS ones. If a review is level-headed and detailed, maybe you can take the criticisms as true, otherwise, get more opinions. Look for patterns. If lots of reviewers, who all make it through the above criteria, say similar things about the products weaknesses then they're probably true. Smell out marketing. If you're looking for the benefits or strengths of something and you've seen a pattern of positive comments from level-headed people who also made criticisms, then look for specificity. If the pros of something are generic then it's more likely to be marketing talking-points, but if they're specific then that's more likely to be true. Also, look for how people say things, and if there are patterns in the phrasing, or if they seem natural. Even unconscious positive bias (be it to the brand, product, or just an agreeable personality) will be influenced by marketing, so a manufacturer can shape the way you think about something with their PR statements and framing, so that when you get the real product you 'see' it in those terms, regardless of how objective you actually want to be. It's a tricky thing. I think that's why people like Gerald Undone are so useful. He's level-headed, speaks in specific terms rather than marketing fluff, and mentions things that others don't. Does he have huge film-making pedigree? Probably not. But if he says that I can't film in 10-bit 4K at more than 30p then I am inclined to believe him. It's also why I unsubscribed to Chris and Jordan. After watching their savage review of the XC10, which was a flawed product to be sure, I realised something - they don't understand film-making. Sure, they mentioned the weaknesses of that camera, which I had verified with other sources and the specs, but they also ripped into aspects of the camera that weren't weaknesses at all. When I watched their review I was completely puzzled, because I was simultaneously watching videos on how people use cine cameras, which was saying the completely opposite to what they were saying and it was then that I realised that they might understand video, but not film-making. Reviewing a cine camera and criticising aspects that all cine cameras share is just silly. Unsub. Having said all that, the whole thing is fraught with peril as I have ended up on many occasions with products that were poorly reviewed and yet worked great for me for years of real use, and also with products that I did the research on and were terrible in ways that no-one mentioned at all. I think of a small part of my budget as R&D purely for writing off stuff that doesn't work out, or for buying things that seem ok but I can't be sure of. Sometimes things work out and other times they don't, but thinking about it like that makes me feel better about it. Certainty is an illusion after all.

According to wikipedia, that's 33 stops of DR. I realise that this spec probably doesn't directly relate to the DR the way that we would normally think of it, so we probably can't compare directly. How does that compare with other sensors? (assuming they measure the same thing?) Or does it directly compare? In which case, 33 stops of DR is A LOT more than an Alexa!!

I couldn't agree more about size and form-factor, and how smaller setups are more fun and, in a way, more spontaneous than larger more serious setups. This is why, despite owning a BMMCC, I bought an OG BMPCC (the P2K!). Paired with the 7.5/2 (giving a 22mm FOV) or 14/2.5 (giving a 40mm FOV) and the obligatory IR cut + vND + diffusion filter stack, it's a fun setup that still fits into the "tourist with camera - nothing to see here - move along" category. Combined with the (much larger) 12-35/2.8 lens gives you great OIS and a 35-100mm FOV. Both combinations give a handheld setup that rivals the best cinema cameras that amateurs who haven't inherited could buy, even up until a handful of years ago. Just for fun, here's a video from the OG BMPCC: and even a full cine-sized rig is getting smaller and smaller these days if you want to rig it up "properly": (courtesy of Tommy Do on FB)

Not sure if it's useful, but this video talks about getting hard shadows with a Nanlight Forza 500, which I think is the same type of light you're talking about?

I would imagine that mirrors could be quite useful, depending on the geometry of your set of course. The sharpness of a shadow is related to the ratio of cookie-to-surface distance with light-to-cookie-distance, if that makes sense. ie, if you have a light and a wall, putting the cookie closer to the wall gives a sharper shadow, and putting the cookie touching the wall would give an infinitely sharp shadow. Use of a mirror could mean using a light with a narrow beam to go the entire width of the set, hit the mirror / cookie (in either order) and then go into the FOV. This would mean that you drastically increase the distance from the light to the cookie, even if the space isn't big enough to let you back up. It does mean that the cookie would have to be bigger though. Having said all that, it's pretty messy and wouldn't work if the there was haze and the path of the light went near the FOV. It's also worth exploring how sharp you want the shadow to be. Your example shots weren't all super sharp.

As a GH5 owner, I've watched Panasonic gradually improve the colour bit-by-bit with every new camera they've released, and they've really taken it to a nice place now I must say. The GH5 still gives spectacular images, but I must say that with the colour science improvements of the newer models that the grass is getting greener. If I didn't have to spend thousands and/or buy all new glass then I'd be tempted. Of course, considering I haven't shot anything in the last 18 months due to covid, it'd be hard to justify upgrading from a camera which is ageing rather than wearing out. I bought the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 and Laowa 7.5mm F2 lenses in 2019 and haven't used them on a trip yet!