kye

I agree. The other part of this equation is to remember the bigger picture. For me, that means lenses. I think a lot of people were Canon or Nikon shooters, and invested in that glass. Then the combination of GH line of cameras, the small size of Panasonic and Olympus m43 cameras for travel, and the lacklustre video quality from CaNikon might have tempted many away from CaNikon to m43 and investing in that lens system. At the start of that progression Fuji was no-where for video (that I'm aware of anyway) and so m43 might have stolen some video shooters from them too. Now what we're talking about is Fuji releasing an excellent offering for video and supposedly all the m43 users will change systems? Or that the CaNikon users who didn't change when the GH line had 4K and CaNikon had 720p will somehow be tempted by Fuji? For me, it will take Fuji releasing a string of solid and really superior camera offerings, and not releasing a bad one, before people will shift in any great numbers, and although they've hit a good combo with the XT-3, the Pocket 4K (and potentially GH6) is keeping m43 people interested, Nikon getting RAW will keep Nikon people interested, who knows what Canon is doing to keep their video users but it's still working, and Sony are releasing cameras at break-neck speed with a long-anticipated A7SIII in the wings, not to mention Panasonic who will likely announce 8K in FF and Sharp who already have for m43. If Fuji are going to keep from being an also-run in video they're going to have to go 8K, RAW, or deliver the exact combination of features that everyone wants and no-one else provides, or a combination of both. Personally, I think it's a great time to go to full-manual FF lenses with adapters, that way you're not trapped in a system.

I agree. With respect to the Northrups, they have consistently pointed out that Sony was an incomplete offering, missing pro features, pro lenses, and the pro support facilities and servicing networks, but as they gradually get the whole infrastructure in place there is a chance that features like faster burst mode could actually impact what the pros choose to use. It's easy to assume that no-one on YT can spell 'nuance', and you'd be forgiven because it is true for most, unfortunately, but I actually like the Northrups because they present facts as facts, opinions as opinions, guesses as guesses, and when they make claims they are happy to show their logic. If you don't agree with something they say then that's normal, but you're not left feeling that anything sly or underhanded is going on.

I agree. There are so many people in the market already and now Sharp throwing their hat in the ring. I've always had a bit of a question mark around people like Sigma who have released a camera you've never heard of and you go look it up and it was released two years ago. You wonder if they sold any at all. I thought that the Sony A9 had potential as a sports shooter? I have no experience with it personally, but I remember the Northrups saying it had a burst mode that killed the CaNikon flagship sports cameras. I think that was when Sony released some longer lenses. I agree. In fact, here's a professional 360 camera that's 11k30 in 3D (ie, two video signals), 8k30 3D 10-bit, 5k120, h264/h265 and 12 stops of DR. https://www.insta360.com/product/insta360-titan/

I think those are the Focus Pixels? If so, MLVApp removes them when you process the footage - it's a tick-box. Andrew wasn't kidding about MLVApp being a pretty cool piece of software - it is super easy to use and has so many features it's starting to look like using Adobe Lightroom!

Would it also limit your ability to control practicals too? Eg, if you wanted to have a practical be a subtle thing in the background, you would only be able to overpower it to a certain degree. BUT, if you aren't competing with other lights then it makes sense to me!

Nice looking images, but wow are those lenses expensive!! I understand the advantages of cinema primes and how they can pay for themselves on a big shoot, but yeah, you'd really want the images to be super nice!

10-bit is a pretty big advantage of the GH5 over the Sonys.

+1 for what @mercer said. I played with ML on my 700D and found the workflow with MLVApp to be quite straight-forward. But.. ML isn't for everyone. Some things to consider are: ML isn't one thing. It's a modular software system with different versions across different camera models. Each of those versions can contain features that are fully-tested and bullet-proof, but may also have features that are cutting-edge with limited testing or even bleeding-edge with zero testing. Depending on what features you use, there may be risks of errors or bugs, or in the bleeding-edge stuff, potentially crashes and loss of footage. There has been some buzz around ML killing SD cards or other hardware, but the reality is that this has happened in very few instances and isn't really something you should be concerned about. The higher-resolution RAW functionality is still quite new, although lower resolutions are pretty well developed now, so there's the risk of bugs. There is no manual, and it's pretty technical. In most companies you have product development teams who work out what customers want, and designers who will tell the developers how to make things easy to use, and support teams who deal with customer enquiries and write manuals. ML only has developers, and forums. On the forums there are users who help each-other and developers who answer questions when they get time, but if you're in the threads about the cutting-edge or bleeding edge stuff, you'll find that a large percentage of the conversation is developers speaking in machine code to each other. You can ask questions and sometimes you'll get answers, but sometimes you won't and maybe searching will help but maybe it won't. It moves pretty fast. Certainly faster than the third-party resources such as YT videos or blog posts can keep up with. Often if you're looking for help with something you will find a how-to and you'll follow it through but get to a point where it no longer works because they changed something and the tutorial uses a menu option that doesn't exist anymore or whatever. You have to kind of work things out for yourself sometimes. I love ML, I think it's great and I wish them every success. But it is a very different experience to the standard firmware that comes in any consumer camera.

The end results speak for themselves! Nice work

It's funny how people talk about the GH5, and GH5S and P4K in similar terms, to me the GH5 is in a different class of cameras because it has IBIS. It might seem to be just another spec, but for anyone who needs to get usable hand-held shots it's practically the king. That's why I bought one over the A7III, P4K, GH5S, EOS-R, Fuji XH-1, etc. If I'd not needed IBIS then I would have been ordering the P4K like a shot. The 'look' of high-quality older cameras is an interesting thing, and I know that @mercer and @webrunner5 have an eye for it. I think I do as well, having ranked the cameras in the 2012 Zacuto Camera Challenge in descending order of price as a blind test, but I'm not sure what part of the look it is that I'm attuned to. I suspect that one aspect people often get attached to is that it doesn't look as real as modern cameras. I've noticed that modern cameras and modern TVs look more real somehow, and to my eyes that hasn't been a good thing. Watching TV soaps on the odd occasion I visit someone and the TV is on I am struck by how much it looks like normal people in a room rather than TV stars in a fictional world. When previously you might have watched a show you're not familiar with for five minutes and come away with questions about the story or characters, now I'm left with impressions about how makeup needs to improve and the whole thing looks like a home video despite being shot professionally. I suspect that this comparison to how cinema used to look is simply one that younger generations just don't have, so they can't be using it as their benchmark. I once read an article saying that the music you listen to at 14 years old is the music that you will like forever because at that age your stage of development and hormones and whatever make the things in your life at that time kind of baked-in, so they stay with you. If you were 14 and mostly watching TV at home and going to the movies in a digital projection setup with THX everything, then that surreal and magical aesthetic of film just wouldn't be in your experience. In terms of 10-bit or more workflows, look to the ML thread. I shot test clips at 10, 12 and 14 bit RAW and compared them and decided that I could barely tell the difference between 10 and 12 bits. ML aficionados with an eye for colour claimed 14-bits was the way to go, but acknowledged that 12-bits was almost as good and that shooting 14 was mostly because it was there and didn't cost them anything. The difference between 8-bit from my XC10 and 10-bit from my GH5 is huge, 10-bit RAW would be better again due to the lack of compression, but I think 12-bit RAW or 14-bit RAW really aren't going to excite many people in a practical kind of way. Lastly, @thebrothersthre3 the reputation of MFT matters to Panasonic. If they don't reassure their MFT customers, the uncertainty might lead to some people switch to FF that would have stayed in MFT, which then would mean less customers for the GH6, devaluing the system and potentially causing a feedback loop that devalues the system. Technology devalues in camera bodies, sure, but lens systems devalue at a different rate. If you don't think that people care what their equipment is worth, have a read in the XC10 thread, and see how many people liked the camera and the image but sold it saying they couldn't keep an investment in a camera that was falling in value.

I have so much more to learn! I've gone to a completely manual focus lens lineup now. AF-S would be great, but I need to be able to pull focus manually and fly-by-wire just doesn't cut it for me anymore. In a sense, I'm using vintage lenses as an affordable alternative to cinema primes. I'm even a bit annoyed when a lens doesn't have click-less aperture adjustments!

It sounds like marketing BS to keep people excited about m43. It's nice that they're implying there will be a GH6, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them still having an MFT line in 5-10 years.

Nah, go big or go home. and a consumer 8K m43 camera is definitely going big. Just ask yourself WWCD? (what would Canon do?) and then do the opposite!!

Did you see what they did in the modern revival about Daleks and stairs? It was quite an amusing moment..

Yeah, I know! Some criticisms just need to answered by telling the people to get a grip ???

The paid version has both spatial and temporal noise reduction. I am pretty sure the temporal NR isn't in the free version but the spatial one might be. There's a bunch of plugins with the free version and a whole bunch more with the paid one. Plus everything that's in Fusion which seems to be enormously complicated and thorough.

Now there's a terrifying combination of words I've never heard before!! In other news, I just managed to score a good deal on a Lomo T-43 40mm f4 lens. At ~$5 including shipping you really can't complain that it doesn't have focus controls or even a mount that you can buy adapters for, so you have to make your own. On my GH5 it'll be 80mm equivalent, and will be competing with my much more expensive 55mm 1.8 Super Takumar and 0.7x focal reducer combination, but in a sense this might be more fun. My plan is to do some free-lens tests and then if it's worth investing in I'll adapt it with the ~$25 for the helicoid adapter, mount adapter, and glue that you need It might be useful to have such a small lens for 80mm - in situations where you want to keep the setup light-weight or compact.

Oh yes, sorry - forgot you're the OP for a second there! I could argue that starting a thread here is inviting the random and that you should have known, but I'll let you off with a warning this time, but don't let me catch you doing the same thing next time and claiming it wasn't intended!! ???

Accidentally?

Yes. Of course, if you think of AI as the automation of thinking, then it fits with robotics, which is the automation of doing. Then you can understand what AI will do by looking at what robotics has done. Robotics has provided three main impacts: it replaced some jobs outright, it de-skilled some other jobs, and it means the owners of the machine get more of the profits. This is reflected in the current trends of there being some unemployment, but considerably more under-employment where skilled workers are forced to work unskilled jobs for less money. The rise of AI will have pretty much the same impacts, but it will do it to intellectually repetitive tasks instead of physically repetitive tasks. We're going to cause an enormous shift in the workforce and that's where the arguments for basic income are coming from. There's been a steady reduction in the number of hours worked per capita over the last 50 years (IIRC - it's multiple decades anyway) due to banning child labour, the 40-hour week, and other social changes, so automation and AI are just continuations of this trend. In the longterm, we're just not going to have enough jobs, so we need to work out how to cope with this.

That is hilarious! Just what I needed first thing in the morning - a good chuckle LOL. During my uni days I had one of those long conversations that ended up following logical tangents to illogical places, and we ended up designing a sarcastic and borderline-abusive artificially intelligent personal assistant. It would be shaped like a key fob and it would do everything a PA would do, basically like a smart-phone minus the social media. During the early parts of the conversation the design was helpful, it would take notes, make appointments by talking directly with other AIPAs, order goods, etc. Then we figured that the market would eventually be saturated with competing products and that's where the sarcasm would come in - as a differentiator. Things like: "Am I busy next Thursday evening?" "Yes, you are....... I don't know why you bother, but sure" "What about Friday night?" "I'm confident you can fritter that away somehow" "Make an appointment for dinner with Suzy Friday night" "Hope springs eternal" "What am I doing after that?" "Regret... Self-loathing..." But you're right, we can get started now on the current technology ???

Isn't that because most people who might entertain that thought combination are too afraid to voice it, and those that do have their megaphones taken away?

Cropping in and panning / tilting / Ken Burns-ing is a digital simulation of a fixed position camera movement, like a fluid-head on a tripod. The difference is that you don't get the depth effects of the foreground moving differently to the background. If there's a movement towards or away from the subject then you also get a change in how out-of-focus the background is. Nice work! Those movements are complex and really interesting. I don't know your style or what you're trying to achieve creatively but this could really add to the right project. The key is to practice and get to terms with the feel it creates and then use it on the right projects. It reminds me of this video that was posted recently about hand-holding and camera movements, especially the combining of multiple shots into a single moving shot. Also, films with "one take" like Russian Ark where the film includes all the normal shots of a film like close-ups, mid-shots, wides, etc but does so in a single fluid movement. Obviously this isn't as extreme with your setup, but that is a whole aesthetic and would really contribute to the right projects.

Also remember that you're comparing footage from those cameras through the compression of YT or Vimeo, unless you download the 4.6Gb file of the video @HockeyFan12 shared above. This may or may not be relevant depending on how your project will be distributed and broadcast.

It's just one of the cornucopia of ways to avoid a real debate or discussion. Unfortunately, most people either don't know enough about how to debate properly or don't care enough about doing it properly, so most conversations are just riddled with dirty tactics and are almost completely devoid of genuine logical arguments. Here's an interesting list that contains 71 intellectually dishonest tactics: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics But there are simpler tactics that are also very common. A great one is shifting the burden of proof. My kids do this all the time and its difficult not to fall for it. They are rude and sarcastic, you call them out about being rude, they deny being rude and instead of justifying that statement they ask "how is that rude" and try to set the context that if you can't prove it then they weren't being rude. Of course, if you fall for the trap and try to provide reasons they just disagree without any argument or proof, and of course they're never going to admit it, so you're flogging a dead horse. I don't think I saw it in the list of 71 tactics in that article. Amusingly, the author of the above says there are only two intellectually honest tactics: