kye

I think they're different cameras. There is a fundamental aesthetic difference between digital and optical image stabilisation, and also about the entire over-capture vs framing workflows too. For my travel and family videos I am tempted to add a 360 cam as a b-cam to my GH5 but they would be for very different situations and types of shot. Loks video shows the near stitching on the EVO to have problems on closer objects because the cameras are a lot further apart. Something to consider if you're unsure about framing and will have objects closer to the camera. Interesting that the BBC is using it. I suspect their quality threshold is roughly the same as mine, where 4K wasn't acceptable at all and the new ~6K ones are just on the cusp. When 8K h265 becomes mainstream and they put it in a form factor like the X I think that will start to really be useful in a serious way, much the same as how GoPros became a viable part of a low budget production kit over time as the quality improved. If you can do a half decent job and be the first person to do it (or if previous attempts weren't good enough but you cross some kind of threshold) then you've got a shot at it getting that "first one" PR and success. But you'd have to be quick!

Lok was impressed with the 3D-without-goggles feature:

A trick in grading you can do to 'see better' is to add a contrast/saturation effect at the very end to both shots. I'd suggest: Start with normal settings and get the right colour space transformation Sat=0 and just match the overall contrast and gamma curve Sat=0 with added contrast to fine-tune the gamma adjustments Sat=150-200% with normal contrast to exaggerate the colours and match the WB, saturation of various hues, and any tints to shadows / highlights back to normal sat and contrast and play the "what looks different' game In a sense, a lot of grading to match things is just looking for what looks wrong and then fixing it and keeping on doing it until it's good enough. The other part of grading is looking for what might make the image better (whatever that means for the project) and just trying things and when you find something that improves it then just dial in the strength of it and then look for the next thing.

You're welcome!! Of course, nothing in my lens tests is stopping you from just putting a 50mm on the camera and then leaving the house... Wider than the 28? or similar to but wider than the Helios? If you're talking the helios, then here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?152436-Russian-Soviet-USSR-Lens-Survival-Guide You're welcome too!! ah, pigeons located, cats thrown.. my work is done!

And that!

Awesome - 3D stuff is moving along nicely In terms of the fisheye stuff, when you're viewing a 3D image with VR goggles you're cropped into the image significantly, plus the fisheye is eliminated in software. This is a screen grab from a mobile VR test app I wrote: When you have the goggles on that line is straight...

Roll two dice and then open a dictionary to a random page, go to the line number matching the first dice, and the word number on that line of the second dice. Do that a dozen times and write them all down. Pick the stupidest / worst / most bizarre three and make a script inspired by or including those words. You can choose to apply a three-act structure or conflict or drama or tension or whatever the hell you want, but the vast majority of "cucumber buzzsaw hysteria" or "spontaneous curry nightingale" films will be fun to make and fun to watch..

I was tempted to list it, but it depends on what type of stills you shoot. For example I doubt it can match the range of shutter speeds as a stills camera. But you're right that raw frame grabs are nicer than the majority of stills cameras still on sale today.

If you want to learn a thing or two, take the original images and then match everyones grades as close as you possibly can. If you can't work out what someone did, ask them and then try that. You will learn a bunch about what the knobs all do, but you'll also learn more about what you like and what 'works' according to your eye and preferences.

Yeah, and it gives you a few interesting little tweaks. For example, the 12-35mm f2.8 "professional" lens is equivalent to a 24-70 f5.6 on FF, which no-one would say was "professional", they'd say that f4 was borderline and f5.6 is WTF, but tonnes of people are running around saying "it's a 2.8 professional zoom" and the manufacturers sure aren't keen to point out it's not the same as a canon 24-70 2.8 zoom. In fact, it's not even as fast as the canon FF kit lens - EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6. Think about a smartphone - those lenses are often under f2, and yet there's no shallow-DOF to be found anywhere, which is why they're putting 1000 cameras on the back and blurring the photos in software. People often comment that my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 is completely ridiculous, but they don't bat an eyelid when someone says they're looking for a 35mm F1.4 for FF, yet my Voigt is equivalent to a 35mm f1.9. Welcome to the crop factor party

10 is good. Probably what matters more than how many lenses are in your cupboard is how many lenses you're lugging around when on set. The less decisions on set the better, and the less time spent swapping between 40mm, 50mm, and 58mm lenses completely unnecessarily. And having 10 lenses that are very different is fine too - when I go to film my kids sports game I don't wonder if I should take the 8mm lens, I just take the sports ones and maybe a standard. Even if you had overlapping modern and vintage lenses the choice for a project wouldn't involve in you taking both sets.

If you want better low light than the GH5 then there aren't a lot of cameras to choose from. The GH5S and A7SII are two that come to mind, but you will sacrifice features if you swap to them. It depends on what features you're willing to lose. Work out what feature you're willing to lose to get better low light performance and that might help you decide. Sorry to hear your GH5 got stolen

All lenses are comparable in focal length, but because different sensors are different sizes then the FOV you get will differ with a given focal length. This might help: https://mmcalc.com

All the talk about B&W in the Lenses thread got me curious...

If we're allowing lenses with more than zero thickness then the Panasonic 14/2.5 isn't too bad a choice either.

True, although not having 'slow-motion' is something a lot of people understand. Although you're right that there is a more domestic (less action) market that wouldn't need it.

Good stuff. I was just thinking another still might be fun. A bit more of a classic retro look to match the sharpness and grain from the original.. I find this as well as the GH5 to be nicely organic looking

If you had the Olympus 9mm f8 or 15mm f8 'body cap' lenses then it would be the same size and would have a lens on it! I know I'm kind of reaching for the extremes here, but for some specific types of stills photography those lenses are actually ideal as well as being very convenient and cheap too

OK, good point.. that makes sense. Action cameras are really a poor fit for home photography for most people so this is more an alternative to the tough/rugged point-n-shoots. In that case there's a gap in the lower end of the market for a smartphone camera in a rugged and waterproof case that's not several hundred dollars. Of course, if Canon are competing with smartphones, going from 4K60 and 1080p240 to 1080p30 sure is a come-down!!

@mercer I agree that having some extra low-light can make a difference. My Voigt 17.5mm is pretty rubbish at 0.95 (equivalent to 35mm F1.9) but I use it there a lot in low-light despite the softness and colour shifts. I really like the idea of having a 'hero' lens and then only having other lenses when that lens doesn't do it. At normal shooting distances you can often hit those 'middle' focal lengths by just taking a step or two forward or back, so I've spaced my set at 8mm, 17.5mm and 40mm - (16mm / 35mm / 80mm equivalents). I view the 8mm and 40mm lenses as specialty lenses that I only put on when the situation doesn't fit the main lens, so in a sense I just have one lens and a couple of specialty lenses for frequent specialist situations. I did an exercise a long time ago for my stills photography where I listed the different shooting scenarios I needed equipment for, then worked out what equipment was best for those situations. For example I discovered that if I'm shooting at night then I don't need a long lens, so although I do need a longer lens during the day, it doesn't have to be amazingly fast. Other things came out of that too, so I managed to save some money and equipment weight by thinking it through like that. I know you're more interested in narrative, so you may have a wider range of situations or aesthetics, but by combining it with those aesthetics you might find some combinations aren't required. For example, someone might only shoot a doco with vintage lenses and that might not require a very wide angle lens, and projects that did might all call for the modern look and now you don't need a vintage wide angle.

If you take a GoPro and extrapolate from there, these had better be closer to $20 than $99. It's like Leica or RED making an action camera!

I've noticed that having lenses at a 2x spacing seems to do the job for me, although I am cropping in post. It seems like there are two series in this pattern - the 16, 28, 50, 100, and the 18, 35, 70 progressions, and those that start with a lens from one of these tend to stick within it more than not, unless you end up with every lens and have them closer together. My experience so far has suggested that looking for a lens that is sharp at a given aperture is more realistic. I've found there are two kind of lenses - those that get sharp when stopped down about two-stops and those that are sharp wide open. The sharp-wide-open group are typically the same as the first but are about two stops slower when wide-open. There are exceptions of course, but when choosing between a lens that is 1.4 and fully sharp at 2.8 vs a 2.8 lens that's sharp wide-open I just see the 1.4 as being more useful, and comparing lenses of different aperture values when wide-open is kind of missing the point. The MFT lens comparison by Shane Hurlbutt with the Voigtlander vs Panasonic vs Olympus suffers from this problem. They compared the lenses at 2.8 and wide open, and that made it look like the F0.95 Voigtlander wasn't as good as the F1.7 Panasonic because the Voigt was softer at 0.95 than the Panny was at 1.7, but had he tested them at F1.7 the Voigt would have been almost at peak sharpness and would have slaughtered the Panny which was still two stops away from its sweet spot.

Interesting. I'd definitely raise that with Tiffen. Let us know how you go

...and when I say on the forefront, what I mean is they haven't implemented FHD 60p yet. Someone please tell me I somehow got this wrong? Seriously, there has to be something else to this.. really.

No no no no... RAW goes in, COOKED comes out!