kye

Maybe you could help a basement dweller out and reply to the grading questions I asked about the GH5 image not holding up? It was a genuine question and however basement-y you think I am, a gracious individual would realise that for every person who comments, there are dozens more who follow along silently, and we could all do with learning more. It would help us to understand your perspective as well. Lots of people blow through these forums and when they have a different perspective or different requirements or standards then it's easy to get riled up, but it's worth it if they manage to explain their perspective and then the rest of us can understand why they have particular requirements or opinions. Sometimes it even happens that when they share theirs, we can share ours and very very occasionally, we all learn something.

True. Lenses sometimes have T-Stops slower than their F-Stop due to transmission loss, but when comparing between sensor sizes and given reasonably modern glass, it's kind of safe to assume that the T-Stop of a lens is relatively close to it's F-stop.

It's difficult to tell if it will or not. The fact it's implemented in commercial products is a good sign that it's possible and someone thought it had enough value to implement, but one of the main challenges would be the parallax error between a depth pixel and a light-sensing pixel. IIRC at the moment the depth camera is separate to the optical camera, so that's a big problem, but may be almost eliminated once we start seeing sensors with both sets of pixels on the sensor, similar to how we have PDAF pixels embedded on sensors now. Ultimately they'll still have a problem with fine detail and things like flyaways on a backlit portrait, but those will get better with AI and with more pixels and less distance between the optical and depth pixels. I wouldn't hold your breath or sell your vintage glass though!

I think it's a market strategy - to prioritise new features over being rock-solid. However, having said that, when I started on Resolve 12.5 it would crash or need a restart about once every 30 minutes, but now that's down to maybe once every two hours or more, and it's stopped crashing but just needs a restart because something has gone funny and you adjust something and nothing happens. Also, have a look at what the PP users are complaining about - they have unreliable software that isn't adding 15% of new features on an annual basis, and they're paying for their software again and again and again and again instead of paying for it once and never again. Resolve was no-where in the market a few years ago and now it's commonly listed as part of the holy trinity - PP, FCPX, Resolve. Given the current trajectory they'll have to slow down new development because they'll run out of things to add, and at that point I think they'll go into more of a refinement mode and it will get even more stable at that point.

Absolutely. One thing I really like about MFT is that I can use my f0.95 primes to stop-down to f1.4 and get a bump in sharpness, I get an exposure about T1.4, and a DoF equivalent to a FF f2.8. Of course, FF has the advantage with lower ISO noise, but getting a higher FF equivalent T-stop while keeping a FF equivalent F-stop makes up for the difference in many ways. I am also a bit in love with a shallower DoF, I'll admit it. However, it's part of a larger creative context, which I'll elaborate on a bit. There are a number of things that make an image look 'cinematic', or if you don't like that word (some don't), make an image have a higher level of production value. These include things like lighting the talent brighter than the background (or the other way around), creating colour contrast with things like orange/teal grades that provide more subject/background contrast, fog to make distant objects less contrasted and also create rays if desired, using out-of-focus backgrounds, using subject and camera movement which outline the varying planes in the scene, etc. One thing that all of these things has in common is that they all emphasise depth in the image. I think that creating depth in the image is a fundamental goal of the medium due to the fact that photography and videography is the attempt to replicate a 3D world on a 2D medium. To this end, Deakin and I operate in very different worlds. Deakin will use all of the above and more to create depth, whereas I operate in completely uncontrolled conditions, with available light, and often without the ability to even move the camera around that much to manage subject to background distance. So I am interested in having a slightly shallower DoF in my images in order to partly compensate for the less ideal other factors, and also in situations where I have a greater subject distance (or a higher ratio of camera/subject distance : subject/background distance than Deakin would choose) I want a lens that goes faster so that I can get the same amount of background defocus under the more challenging situation. This is kind of like when we've talked in other threads about shutter angle and someone said that they like having a >180 shutter angle in order to compensate for other areas where their image is a bit lacking. I bang on about tech on these forums probably more than the average member, but I do so in the context of the creative output. I do it so I can get nice images, and my learning journey has been one where I work out what matters more, what matters less, and what doesn't matter at all, to me at least. I'm aware of smartphones getting better in low light and also in the folded camera modules with longer focal lengths. I had a few long conversations with my dad about the Light L16 as had it lived up to its claims of being a DSLR replacement (it didn't) he would have bought one. His primary interest was using it in very high dust environments which due to it being completely sealed would have been a great fit. He's killed a number of cameras and has now basically given up due to this. We talked about those P&S 'tough' cameras that have a standard zoom but are completely waterproof, but the image never stacked up. The A7 series are definitely quite small, and I was considering an A7iii + 24-105/4 setup against the GH5 back when I bought the GH5. From memory it was the 10-bit and better IBIS that sealed the deal for me. I was interested in the better low-light of the A7iii, but in the end the GH5 with fast primes sees slightly better in the dark than I do, and that's good enough for me. If I can't see it, I won't miss shooting it. I've said above that I think that a mid-sized sensor will hang on. I don't know if it will be MFT or 1inch but considering there aren't a lot of ILC 1" cameras, I think MFT has the edge in that situation, although the RX series sure seems to have made a lot of sales. The advancements in smartphone low light and performance will trickle into the mid-sized sensor format, so in that sense it will benefit from the tiny smartphone sensor market, and the mum and dad taking photos of junior running around in normal indoor lighting, which places very high but completely practical requirements on low-light performance.

This whole conversation is jumping around. We're simultaneously talking about if MFT can create professional images, and also about what is being sold in the market. These aren't part of the same conversation, because the market for what can create professional images is very small in comparison to what is getting sold in the market. The percentage of the market that is made up by cameras that are approved by Netflix or by AES EBU etc is very very small. You are the one making this personal, not me. Have a read back through our conversation and look for every comment where one of us made a statement about the other ones level of knowledge, character, or capacity for reasoned judgement. Seriously, I encourage you to do so. I did. Size and weight isn't a cop-out argument, smartphones are a counter-example of both your comments about sensor sizes moving up and also size/weight (which are a proxy for convenience). Size and weight aren't important for productions where camera rigs are larger and typically supported as part of some kind of rig, be it a tripod, shoulder rig, or other, but they are important in the market because lots of cameras are used hand-held or in ultra-portable light-weight setups. My view is that the market is becoming a U-shaped curve, with smartphones at the tiny-sensor end representing the vast majority of consumer photography, and S35 / FF / FF+ at the other end representing the high-end photography and cinematography markets. The middle used to be full of pocket cameras for the general public and that's the part of the market that smartphones decimated. The question is how far the drop in the middle of the curve will go. MFT is almost exactly in the middle of that dip. If we imagine a situation where all that is left is smartphones at the one-end and FF/FF+ professional stills and cine-cameras at the other, would that make sense? Smartphones are terrible with long focal lengths as they're too large physically for the form-factor, and are bad in low light. FF cameras aren't pocketable and the lenses are very large. From this scenario, I suggest that there is a place in the market for a middle-sized sensor. Maybe it's a battle between the 1" sensor and the MFT sensor, but I see a market for a "middle sized" sensor well into the future. Of course the GH5 footage seen by colourists is going to be more challenging than Alexa footage. Productions shot on an Alexa are much more likely to be lit well and shot under controlled circumstances. Productions shot on an Alexa are more likely to have a colourist as a matter of course, rather than as a trouble-shooting tactic. Productions shot on the GH5 and many other cameras of this price-point and market tier will be graded by the DP or Editor as a matter of course and only brought to a colourist when there is a problem that can't be dealt with by the team. Of course, when I have discussed the GH5 with the colourists the reaction wasn't one of dread, it was one of 'sure, we see them on a regular basis, no worries'. I agree with you that the cine market will be fine long-term. What we're seeing is a shake-up of the market, not a decline of the market. Home theatre had an amazing impact to the multiplex, but we're watching multiplex content more than ever on streaming sites. The fact that people can earn a living making high production quality content for free on YT or Instagram through their own branding deals means that these platforms are also feeding into the high-end market. Whenever I see a glimpse of a camera rig (eg, a reflection in a window) I try and get a good look to see what they're using, and the number of 'normal' YT shows that use a C300 or FS5 is surprising. You see it less on reality shows on streaming, as they're more carefully edited, but you still see reflections from time to time. Of course, counter to your claims of Netflix approved requirements, I see other setups too. One show used a GoPro Fusion 360 quite a bit. Even if this is true, getting RAW or higher frame rates or better EIS or better AF etc are all possible. Things like getting a better combination of things, like 4k60 10-bit, or even 5k60 12-bit may be possible (a quick google suggests that the GH5 uses the IMX272AQK sensor, which can do 5K60 open-gate 12-bit, 5K80p 16:9 10-bit, 5K111 2.66:1 10-bit, 2.6k180 2:1 10-bit, etc). It could even implement V-Log instead of V-LogL or even a straight rec2100 or rec2020 implementation instead of whatever the hell it is using now (it's not either, I did tests). So, genuine question. What are you looking for when you say the image "never held up"? Is this a value judgement in terms of how nice things were, or was there some objective measure? After watching a bunch of 8-bit vs 10-bit comparison videos where people tried to break 8-bit with varying levels of success, I tried to break the 10-bit and couldn't. For example, I found an image with subtle graduations and applied a curve that looked like a square-wave, way beyond anything that would occur in real-life: Or are you referring to a situation where a more normal colour grade exposed compression artefacts or colour glitches in the image? I agree that depth and lens choice is very poorly discussed by MFT users. For example, the fact that the default MFT pro lens is the 12-35/2.8 and it's the equivalent of a 24-70/5.6 but people always refer to it as a 2.8 in the same way as a 24-70/2.8 lens for FF is infuriating to me. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 with 0.71x SB is equivalent to an f2.5 is better in this regard, but I agree that it's not spoken about in the way it should be. I bought fast primes, knowing what depth I was interested in getting, but it's a compromise. Of course, on the other hand, I also use a 70-210/4 zoom + 2X TC for sports, and the money I saved from not having to buy a 400mm FF lens paid for my entire setup, so there is that.

It is Panasonic, so I suppose there's a slim chance that they'll improve it in a future firmware upgrade, but I sure wouldn't be buying one and betting on that though.

So you couldn't just put the same processing on it and have it broadly match the other footage? That's a real issue - it was sold as that so wasn't that kind of the point?

This is interesting and useful. It shows you how Resolve can render the colour grading up to a certain node, but not beyond it. So for example, if your node tree started with a Deflicker (great for timelapses), then NR, then a Motion Blur (for fake 180 shutter!) then you could render these three nodes into a cache but then grade normally after these and unless you go back and adjust one of them it wouldn't need to re-render that cache. I've never heard about this before, so thought it was worth sharing.

I agree with @Mustafa Dogan that it obviously isn't well-matched to the marketing spiel, but that we should just consider it on its merits. Remember when half the P4K thread was just people jumping up and down about it having the word "Pocket" in the title? I think this is similar 😂😂😂

Tom Antos did this comparison below, in which he pushed the cameras both under and over, and he shows the results of pulling the exposure back in post so it's nice and clear. What I'm not so clear on is if this is the right version of the Ursa that you're referring to? There are a few and I'm not across all of them. I think there are two challenges, the first is that if one brand directly compares their product to another brand then they can get sued, which seems odd, but seems to be a thing. That's why any comparisons are always with a "leading competitor" instead of naming them directly. The other challenge is that there is no official way to measure DR objectively. When someone says it's 12.1 stops then they're choosing a level of noise, and had they chosen a different level of noise then it might have been 12.4 or 11.8. So because there's no standard threshold you can't compare measurements done by different people against each other. Even if we defined a number and everyone started testing against that number, there are other factors to consider too, such as the noise being an RMS, or peak-to-peak, or some other approach. Remember how you used to go to big box stores and there were these tiny little boom boxes that said they were 3000W, but your home theatre system is only 100W and it's way louder? That's a difference of measurement methodology. You can, however, directly compare and see how a given camera compares to other cameras that you kind of have a reference for, so that's useful. Reading a number for DR is less-so.

I'm following along quite nicely, thank you for your screaming condescension, it is really helping this conversation along! (Although it's not doing much to make me think that you're a serious working professional who can be trusted to make balanced judgments about an entire industry, but you know, you do you.) I agree that when no-one makes MFT cameras any more then the format will be dead. The issue here is that people still are making MFT cameras. The P4K is an MFT camera that pushed what was possible at a given price point when it was released. The Z CAM E2-M4 was only announced a few months ago (?) and is a MFT cine camera. The GH5 is still a current model and although it is overdue for a refresh, it's not that much overdue, and there hasn't been any confirmation from Panasonic (that I know of anyway) that their FF line replaces the GH line. Ok, so assuming you're telling the truth, your experience might be in the part of the industry that is too high-end. Anyone who has worked on a Marvel production or on the Netflix approved sets that you reference probably hasn't worked in a low budget indy or web production since before the GH5 was released (or the GH4 for that matter!). Everyone has blind spots in their experience. One of my blind spots is the entire non-english-speaking world for example. I'm a knowledgable guy, but not about much of what's going on in Turkmenistan. Blind spots are inevitable, I fear that you're confusing your (probably large amount of) knowledge with the idea that you have a good overview of the entire camera-buying market. Thanks - I was beginning to think I knew everything and was becoming omnipotent, but your timely reminder has staved off a bout of madness. I am familiar with the RED forums, I'm registered there. I'm also familiar with CML, and have registered there too. I haven't sought out EVA owners, but there's a few on here. I have sought out GH5 users though, and I didn't find any significant concentrations of them, except here. Which might be why so many people are disagreeing with you and down voting your posts. But back to you telling me I don't know anything.... They're both done with cameras right? It's great that we've finally gotten to the point in the conversation where you ask about my background. I'm a guy who makes home videos. I shoot, edit, colour grade, and then publish my own work. You might then conclude that I wouldn't have the faintest idea about anything, but this would be untrue, because you see, I have been teaching myself to do everything, including colour grade, which leads me to why I might think I know something about this. You see, I hang out on the colour grading forums with professional colourists. So while you might be off making things and only being exposed to one tier of the industry, colourists (who aren't in the upper echelons of feature films) are seeing a wide spectrum of professional work done. and when I got my GH5 and started speaking to them about how to colour grade it, I learned they regularly see footage from cameras like the GH5 on the low-budget productions that can only just afford a colourist. You reference American Pickers, but that's precisely the kind of production that might use a GH5. That and documentaries where owning the camera would be an advantage instead of having to rent an Alexa or C300 on and off over months, maybe with short notice if events unfold and they need to get to location ASAP. I guess this is where we start to question what your definition of a professional DP is, and if it includes professional indy film-makers or you tubers or vloggers, but it actually doesn't matter. We're not talking about if the GH5 is currently a major force in blockbuster Hollywood productions. We're not even talking about if MFT has ever put an image on Netflix. We're talking about if MFT is dead, and to talk about that we only have to talk about who is buying it. This means that we're talking about customers. Which means that it does include all the professional indy film-makers and you tubers and vloggers and even little old me shooting little Suzy blowing out the candles on her 3rd birthday cake. MFT was never sold as a high-end cine system. Even when it came out it was for the size of production that couldn't afford to rent equipment or didn't suit the type of shooting schedule involved. This is where you've gotten me wrong. I do see the signs. MFT is a terrible investment. So is EF. If someone was asking on here if they should buy into the MFT system I would tell them to carefully evaluate their options. My take on the industry is that: Photography always had a FF superiority complex and smaller sensors are basically being eaten by smartphones, and now a Medium Format fetish is starting to emerge Cinematography had standardised on S35 but has recently started shifting to larger sensors The industry is in decline due to smartphones and less players means there will be attrition (which this thread is about) and considering the above going S35 or FF might be the 'safer' option MFT might be a good recommendation if the person asking had a specific requirement, such as a size/weight limitation, a cost limitation, or some combination of things (the way I do) I would also suggest that cameras and lenses are an investment, but you pay for them in $$$ and you get a return in images, not resale value. This seems to me like a relatively balanced and nuanced view. Indicative of pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and context playing an important part in any decision. On the other hand, there's you saying things like "MFT is dead because companies will stop making the bodies and sensors." Not particularly nuanced.

Your arguments all appear to be circular, or simply saying that things that are MFT or are old are somehow inferior by default. I guess the Alexa is screwed then, it's really old, the image is soft as hell and it's not FF either! The S1H might well make a nicer image than the GH5, I didn't say that no camera produced a nicer image. In fact the S1H sure better make a nicer image - is it twice or three times the current cost of a GH5? I haven't kept tabs. It's also large and heavy in comparison. You can't say that the GH5 is irrelevant because there's a camera with a nicer image that costs way more and is larger and heavier. If so, the S1H is irrelevant because the Sony Venice exists. You may not like it, but the 10-bit is still 10-bit. I know because I shoot in available light high DR situations and grade heavily, and even after attempts to break the image, it has held up. Someone even made a comment on these forums in the last month or so lamenting the lack of 4k60 in the current lineup of camera bodies. You can't really argue that its 60p isn't 60p. Of course there are cameras that make a nicer image. It sounds like you're living in the internet / vlog / YT / camera reviewer / forums / photographer-as-videographer bubble and don't really know what is happening in the industry. The reality of working DOPs is that most of them aren't online talking about their equipment, they're out in the world shooting and their images are only available on Netflix / Amazon / Hulu / etc, or non-camera YT channels. You have absolutely no idea what most of the content you watch in a given day is shot on. If a camera produces a good enough image then when it's on TV you'll have no idea you're watching that camera. The GH5 is out there being used by working pros and it's completely invisible to us. The entire industry is in upheaval with far less money to go around in some areas, in such times people who are interested in feeding their families will put off upgrades and just keep working. I'm not saying that the GH5 is the best camera in the world, but you're acting like it's no longer being used by anyone making content, which simply isn't true.

This is what I was thinking. I was also thinking they might have done a camera update and then the marketing people added the word "vlogger" in post. and by "post", I mean post-camera-design

Welcome to the "I discovered that something that 'everyone knows' is completely wrong by simply trying it out myself" club. If this was a real club then my rank would be 'Grand General Lord - Class 15 - Special' because the number of times I've spent 30 minutes doing a test and found out everyone online is talking out of their asses about something is beyond counting at this point. We should make t-shirts.

I think your argument is based around the idea that lenses are an investment, but they're not, they're a consumable. I understand why you might think that, because it's a myth that seems to be on endless repeat in photography circles. To understand why I don't believe that lenses are an investment, have a look at the Camera-Wiki Lens Mounts page, or the Wikipedia Flange focal distance page, and see how many of the mounts are still in-use on a current model camera. There are things like PL, and EF (although its days are numbered), but the vast vast majority of them are essentially dead. Even if you take very good care of them (the best way by never using them!) they will still age and the rubber and lubricants will dry out, with plastics becoming brittle, and coatings changing over time (yellowing, for example). A second hand market does exist for some of the exotic lenses of yester-year, but unless you're talking about the pinnacle of the range, then they're worth very little. MFT is a dead mount in the same way that EF is a dead mount - it is supported by current flagship cameras with specs that remain desirable, but is likely to decline in the future. I would hesitate to call PL mount a dead mount, but anything else probably has the writing on the wall, it's just a matter of time. I invested in MFT glass considering it a purchase that I would use for a period of time, get value out of, and then at some point it would be worth nothing to me and likely to other people as well. Just like the shiny new camera bodies that everyone loves to salivate over. I have some of the most desirable MFT lenses around, but the total cost was still in the same league as buying a single camera body. In terms of the GH5 having been left behind, do a count of how many current model cameras can match the 4K60, or the 400Mbps All-I 4K 10-bit internal, or the 5K 10-bit open gate h.265. Odds are whatever it is you're using can't do that. There are some cameras that can, but odds are that I can't get them into a museum or historical monument without security asking me if I'm a professional, which wouldn't matter because my arm would probably fall off having to carry it around all day. All technology goes down in value over time. Relying on the resale value of any piece of equipment to justify its ROI is a recipe for losing your money. I don't understand why people think of equipment in terms of resale value - it's purpose is to be used, not traded.

I'm lucky that there are quite a few camera stores in Perth, but they're not my first port-of-call. I did buy my GH5 from one of them though, paying the associated markup, because I needed it urgently before a trip and wasn't willing to bet on shipping times, especially considering that it's common practice for ebay auctions to be listed as coming from Australia then they send you a message saying it's out of stock in AU but they'll ship from HK for free, and then it takes international shipping times. I've seen a few of the stores, and I think there is only really one or two that are focused on anything more than making sales. The ones that used to stock film, high-end bodies and lenses, and do servicing were more of a community feel, but have long since moved out of the main city area and may not exist any more.

I agree. Not a large chance, but there is one. When it comes to market disruption the incumbents have huge resources in the form of brand recognition and access to capital and experience in design and manufacture, but if they have the wrong mindset then they will be beaten by a more agile company that is attuned to what the market needs and makes a few lucky calls in terms of guessing where the market will go. We're seeing that with the slow decline in retail in Australia. The incumbents haven't made the switch to online and their arrogance is what's stopping them from competing. Google "click frenzy" if you haven't seen it - basically the bricks and mortar stores did a deal with an online store to have a massive sale and despite it being literally their only job, it still crashes every year. Meanwhile the stores that operate online have heard of the technologies from strange companies like "amazon" and "shopify" which handle such things every day without breaking a sweat. But I guess you have to be a tech guru to figure these things out - you can't find out about these things without knowing how to google 😂😂😂

What the hell happened to this lens?? Is there fog inside, or is this a strange early optical design? It reminds me of the 37mm lens modification in this video: IIRC that modification was where one of the lens elements was reversed, I think he showed the process in another video.

In a shrinking market you don't have to do anything wrong, in fact you can do many things right even, the problem is that to stay alive you have to do more things right than enough competitors in order to stay ahead of the edge of the storm. It's like that saying, "you don't have to run faster than the bear, you just have to be fast enough to not be last" but the exception is that in this case the bear can eat many more than one person.

Yes, lots of lenses and lots of cameras still exist. Plus adaptability of almost every other lens system. Try telling everyone who owns a Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Metabones SB that MFT sucks because there aren't any lenses, when they own an adapter to use every S35 lens ever made. Holy WOW!!! a 3000W vlogging camera! That's more watts than my mates subwoofer, and it's fully sick!! *ahem* I guess licensing agreements will be potentially up for review at some point? It sure would be great if Panasonic got Olympus IBIS tech.

Driving home yesterday I saw a woman out walking with a bright orange coat and I realised that the scene before me was pretty much how the camera rendered the wedding shot in Italy - everything very low in saturation except a few spots of radical colour that basically don't look real. I guess that's how the real world actually looks. It's not how the world looks in most videos, and it's definitely not how we experience the world. I've had issues before with trying to get my blacks to sit at the right level. It seems like the difference between crushed and instagram-retro is less than the thickness of a human hair. Maybe I need to apply a node that boosts the signal by 10x then go through my whole timeline to equalise everything out and then remove the 10X node again. I sometimes do that with saturation, having a node that radically saturates the whole timeline and then I can look at all the thumbnails and see any clips that have an obviously different WB, which I can then fix and remove the node again. I'm committing every sin in the violinist shot. Underexposing a mixed-lighting scene with an 8-bit camera in log using a codec with a low bitrate..... in slow-motion. This specific shot taught me the value of higher bitrates and 10-bit colour. Unfortunately, this is what real-life actually looks like, but the problem is that it's not how we perceive the real-world, and due to the technical limitations involved I can't get this shot to even remotely how it looked to me at the time. Yes, that looks more neutral. The issue is that this isn't remotely how the scene looked in real life. My frustration is that I can completely remove all colour issues by simply reducing the saturation to zero, but the target aesthetic of this piece was that it was a happy occasion and Italy is a colourful place. The grade above simply doesn't match that aesthetic, being closer to a bleach bypass look for a desolate film rather than a colourful look for a happy rom-com. For context, this trip to Italy was part of my honeymoon! Thanks for outlining your process, I'll have to replicate it and have a play. You think that the S1 shot would have been harder to grade? That surprises me, considering that my GH5 was a breath of fresh air after trying to grade the XC10 footage for a couple of years. My experience of watching colour grading videos online with footage from five-figure cine cameras was that you can raise the levels up and up and up and they just scale up but otherwise look completely fine, rather than pulling things up a bit and being presented with awful hues and terrible artefacts. The GH5 feels exactly the same way in post as that - it just scales up without any drama. I can understand the a6500 not doing so well though. I guess I don't want to force a shot that doesn't exist, but it did exist, the camera just failed to capture it even remotely the way that it was, in reality. I've found the GH5 to be far more forgiving of difficult lighting. Mind you, had I used the XC10 4K mode then it might have been a different story due to the higher resolution and bitrate of three times more bits per pixel, or 12 times more bits per frame. Yeah, very Canon. I really do make life difficult for myself by shooting in the worst possible conditions! lol, I immediately thought of vodka, but perhaps you should be adding tequila? Not too sure what the YT upload was at, but the frames I posted above were 720 to be a bit easier to view in the thread. Here's the CLog still at the original resolution: The 1080p is pretty soft, and the 1080p50 even more-so. I exported the PNG above and a TIFF file and swapping back and forth between them shows very little difference. For reference, here's another CLog shot from the video, PNG at 4K:

Some Macs already have the T2 chip, which I couldn't find good info for, but read somewhere that it decodes h265 in hardware. Not sure about encoding, or about h264, but that could be a read advantage when the packages utilise it.

I second what @heart0less said. If you expose and WB both cameras then you can shoot a colour checker with both of them afterwards and broadly work out how to make one look like the other. Good colour grading advice I got from someone once was that cameras don't have to match - they just have to match closely enough so that the differences aren't distracting, like "they're from the same universe".

In contrast, here's an equivalent shot from the GH5 with HLG and a basic WB, black and white point correction, and saturation adjustment: Obviously the gamma curve is different, and sat is a bit higher, but interesting comparison. I was looking at the vector plots of each, but nothing immediately useful stood out.