kye

While I think this is theoretically true, one advantage that having a great rolloff in-camera has is that the compression doesn't take the bad rolloff and make it worse, as the cameras rolloff is done prior to compression. If you think about early digital video cameras, the highlights looked so awful partly because the rolloff was so awful, but also that the bad rolloff had edges that the high-compression rates and poor codecs then turned into awful jagged messes, and sometimes not even low-contrast jagged messes, but high contrast ones.

Maybe a Digital Bolex D8, but maybe not. The list of redeeming features of the digital bolex wasn't just a single item about being able to get shallow DoF. Imagine if the ML guys decided to make an open-source camera on this platform, where anyone could develop the algorithms to process the RAW image data coming off the sensor.. @Sage or @Juan Melara having full control of the colour science, debayer algorithms, etc. Dual exposures for high DR, and all manner of computational photography options. Think of all the cool things that smartphone apps can do that your video camera can't do. This could enable all that stuff and more. It would make a pretty good form-factor too, especially for places where it's difficult to mount anything, etc.

If this can output a RAW video stream, then camera hackers everywhere will begin churning out truly interesting products... digital bolex, remotely cinematic action cameras, etc etc... the price of C-mount lenses will also rise!

More DR would be great. I'm watching lots of YouTube and even on things that were only uploaded at 1080 or less (which are heavily compressed by YT) I can always tell when they've used a nice camera because outdoor scenes in full sunlight look natural and the light looks soft whilst still not being diffused, giving great skin tones and a natural rendering of DR. RAW 1080 with high DR and nice colours beats 4K, 6K, or 8K+ when the lighting becomes difficult. the year 20205?? by then my ultimate camera system will be 100K+ RAW, full EMF bandwidth, 20+ stops of DR, sensor modules for each eye, a processor that uses AI to build a current and predictive 4D model around me, with all the usual AR augmentation... and they should look completely natural, and I should be able to change the colour of my eyes to suit my outfit. anything less and you're a sucker!

I thought he meant "internal focusing", as the conversion still extends during focus adjustments. There aren't a lot of situations where that matters, but I guess there are some?

You can get them, but they're expensive and they do go far into the mount. I can't remember if they're MFT -> DMount or MFT -> CMount -> DMount but I remember finding something and deciding it was too expensive, but you can get them. P4K is the BlackMagic Pocket 4K camera which is MFT and does 4K60 RAW, so it's an absolute cinema beast.

One thing you may consider is instead of the Pentax Q or the Samsung NX is to use the P4K. I know it has a m43 sensor which is far too big, however, it's a 4K m43 sensor and it has several crop modes. D-Mount lenses were designed for 8mm film, which is either 3.3mm x 4.5mm for 8mm or 4mm x 5.79mm for Super 8 film. The P4K sensor is 18mm x 10mm, which makes 8mm film 25% the width/height, and 25% of 4096 is 1024 pixels wide. So, even if a D-Mount lens only covered 8mm standard film and not Super 8, it would still project a large enough image circle to get a 1024x576 resolution image, and remember that this is RAW. The P4K has a 1080 mode, which if you shoot in RAW it just uses the middle of the sensor, so its cropped in. Depending on the lens you use, you might end up being able to get a larger crop than just 576p. In comparison to the quite compressed files from the Q or NX, having full RAW (and up to 120p) would definitely be an upgrade in image quality. I was going for an action camera due to the size and weight, but as soon as you move up to something normal camera sized then that's gone out the window and you may consider other options like the P4K.

I don't own the lens, so........

Hey, no excuses... dig out a halogen work light, put up the xmas lights in the bg, switch to 60/120/240p, get a family member to dance (some only require wine and a little encouragement) and LET US SEE THE FOOTAGE!!!!

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/

Hi Florin.. I haven't done it yet, but I can tell you that you're probably not going to be able to fit the lens on without significantly modifying the GoPro. I believe that both D-Mount and C-mount lenses should cover a GoPro sensor. In my research I did find that CS to C-mount adapters exist, but I'm not that sure on how the flange distance goes, which is the main hurdle on this conversion. I do have a vague memory of finding a youtube video showing a CS-Cmount adapter fitting into a camera without needing to take the camera apart, but I can't recall what camera that was, so it may have been an alternative action camera, although I suspect they probably all use the same sized sensors and lens mounts, so the flange distance is likely to be equivalent. If you have a look at the images I took, you can see a few things: Firstly, the threaded hole that the original lens fits into is very narrow compared to a d-mount lens, and also a d-mount lens will be designed to screw in and stop against a reference surface, whereas the GoPro lens is designed to adjust for infinity focus by screwing the lens in and out and there is no reference surface. You can also see from the above that I had to grind away parts of this metal piece. I don't know if the newer models will have the same design, but the original lens sticks out much further away from the sensor before it gets larger than the threaded hole, so I anticipate you're not going to find a d-mount lens that will work without having to essentially remove parts of the GoPro. One thing that you might get some good info from is videos showing you how to mount a GoPro on one if those super-tiny DIY racing drones, as they always take the GoPro apart to make it as light as possible and relocate the battery for weight distribution etc. This is useful as they should show you how to take things apart and also which things are needed for the GoPro to operate and which things aren't required and can be removed. It's a pretty serious project, so best of luck!

I recall previous conversations where people talked about the legacy architecture that Canon had in place being a bottleneck, do you think that perhaps it took them a while to wake up and smell the 8K, but then took a long time after that to work out alternatives to their architecture issues? I don't know how long their product development cycles would be, but I've heard in other industries that although the product cycle might be new models annually, that the complete end-to-end can be 4 or 5 years, so they essentially have 4 or 5 models in development simultaneously, so it might have been a few years between them deciding to bite the bullet and go for a new architecture and that new product seeing the light of day. Not sure if you've gleaned anything in your conversations with reps and vendors?

32-80mm is a common range. My three primes are 1) 35mm equivalent 2) 15mm equivalent and 3) 85mm equivalent. and only the other day a wedding photographer released this video in which he says he uses two bodies, one has a 35mm and the other is an 85mm: so that's a common range.

Absolutely agree on this one. I think there's an element of focus - the more you shoot the more you shift your focus from equipment to composition and the things you think about when shooting.

Be careful with attaching lenses. Every one I have seen reviews of is a disaster optically, corners smeared, CA in spades, etc. Even the most expensive ones. The expensive ones are at bad-vintage lens quality, and the cheap ones are at "I made this lens with magnifying glasses and tape" quality. Think of them as instant very-vintage, which is fine if you lust after IQ that rivals a Petzval, but night-and-day to any real lenses.

Have a look online about upgrading the firmware, which may overwrite whatever is going on. If it's got the latest version of the firmware then see if you can find an older version and try and install that, then install the latest one over the top of it so you're back to the latest features. Often firmware upgrades can be triggered via having a file on the SD card and holding down a button on startup, so may not require the menus to work, see if you can get lucky with it. Otherwise, trying to get around the recording limit essentially voids the warranty, so if it's bricked, then it's bricked.

Nice work! For a limit of an hour you did a really good job. Lots of variety of shots to keep the edit moving, etc. I also kind of like the design of it, considering that the song is basically about the guitar, and so is the video, so it kind of suits.

Absolutely. Any shot you took is better than every shot you didn't. I also rate ergonomics pretty highly in equipment as I think it frees up the emotional energy we would spend being annoyed and allows us to better get into the zone and be more creative, improving composition and the other things that no amount of bit-depth or bit-rate can compensate for

What do you miss and what made you change? In all my camera researching I came across very little of the Olympus cameras, and after Dave Altizer reviewed their more recent flagship it seems like they have some great cameras but no-one is talking about them. Some people were trying to get me to go Olympus but I went the GH5 because of the 10-bit internal, which is pretty hard to beat for flexibility in post.

True. @Geoff CB One of the things that I see quite often in grading workflows is the "find anything distracting in the shot and neutralise it" step. In this case maybe a power window that desaturates the orange to match the overall orange tone and something that shifts the blue towards green to match that tone and also desaturates it so that it doesn't stand out.. Of course, here we are harshly judging a couple of shots you might have just done a very quick grade on!

The Pentax Q has a pretty gnarly crop-factor.. and probably needs all the help it can get with fast lenses for low light exposure!

I guess I should have clarified that an MFT + fast lens setup is cheaper than a FF + prime setup. It's the FF mania that makes that platform more expensive overall. Once again, there are many many variables, and we are not considering them, but on the whole those other variables total up to be much more significant in the choice of platform than just low light, with the exception of extreme low-light where you need the FF option. We can disappear down the rabbit hole of FF vs MFT, but we've all been there and done that. Instead, my point was that MFT can be a good option with its own advantages which FF has not yet matched/surpassed for all users with all sets of requirements.

A real-world review of the Panasonic G7 from a film-maker (as opposed to an equipment reviewer): Plus you can see actual narrative work from it on his channel too.

One thing that is interesting is that they didn't cover the effects of sensor size on DoF vs exposure value. For example my Voigtlander f0.95 MFT lenses are faster than something like a f1.2 FF lens, and they are if we're talking exposure value where they're brighter, but they're not if we're talking about shallow DoF where they have the same DoF as a FF F2 lens. This gives a very interesting advantage for my GH5 which is that I can shoot in low light conditions where an F1 exposure value is required (especially considering the GH5 isn't dual-ISO and not that great in low-light) but I only have to focus with a DoF equivalent to an F2 lens, which is far more manageable in practical terms. The video spends time talking about the limitations of how to work with such a shallow DoF and most of the time it's a liability in terms of limiting actors movements, having to film things backwards in order to nail focus, etc. Yes, the OOF areas give it a surreal and very interesting aesthetic, but in the context of getting usable exposure in a low-light scenario a smaller sensor is better. Also, the price of the f0.95 MFT lenses is a fraction of the price of F1 or faster FF lenses, they're smaller, lighter, etc etc. If you wanted to do extreme low-light shooting today I think that you have to go the Sony FF + prime lens route and use the high ISO performance of the camera, but if you only need low-light and not extreme low-light then a modern MFT camera with a F0.95 lens can also be a practical choice. My GH5 + f0.95 lens combination can see better in low-light than I can, and I have much better night vision than most other people.

A few thoughts: I shoot my GH5 on auto-ISO and on aperture-priority mode (which varies the shutter) but what @Video Hummus says is true and you will get un-natural looking motion in some situations if you do that. You would be better off shooting more manually as he has suggested. I suspect the problem you are having with the clip you linked to is the colour? You mentioned that "there is an incredible sun and red earth" and the footage does look quite yellow. If you can post a still image with the colours you would like to match this clip to then I can give you some advice about how to match the colours I shoot in available light and sometimes there are difficult lighting conditions that require some work in post to adjust for. The clip you posted looks like the white balance may be off, which could be caused by many things, like the sun shining through smoke in the air, etc. Learning to adjust white balance in post on clips shot in difficult lighting is a skill that is much much harder than it seems and took me a long time to get good at it.