kye

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah Raw is Always going to win with good grading skills. Look at the Canon ML results. And so is ProRes, especially with company's that have good Color Science. It is the better Codec because it is 10, 12, 14 bit and has a data rate out the wazoo. I have been seeing better grading from just what seems normal people than BMD themselves seemed to produce in the beginning. Kind of odd to me. So there is hope for this camera. But you better load up with recording media and a shit pot full of batteries. Sort of sounds familiar doesn't it. ?

Yep.  and for those who are used to shooting in those rec709 profiles and throwing on a LUT in post it's definitely a case of "oh Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!!" ???

11 hours ago, mojo43 said:

People think you are just some silly tourist with an rx100, which maybe I am hahaha

You might be a silly tourist, but in film-making terms you're definitely not!  Truly nice work, and if the modest setup is limiting you then it's not coming through in the edit.

Makes me want to sell everything and buy an RX100 and just go shoot stuff, which is a sign of a successful film!

Subscribed.

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

By the way, I just realised the interview with Dave takes place between two ferns. Will have to invest in a better backdrop next time!!

Or just own it, and do every interview between two ferns!!  Surely there are some fake ones you can buy that will come apart and fit into a tripod bag??

???

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Hard to put a percentage, but a lot of the time you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Olympus and Panasonic stabilization. It's really only when you push it to the limits does one clearly outperform the other. You won't notice much difference though in basic/typical handheld shooting. 

Thanks, that's what I was thinking.  I've read that Olympus helped Panasonic with the IBIS in the GH5 and that's why it's so good, but the difference seems to be more like 10-20% better rather than night-and-day.  

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Hmm, I know the GH5 has a ton more features but after using my friend’s E-M10iii, watching videos from that camera on here, and just spending a little while watching online videos from the E-M1ii, I think the overall image is just more organic from the E-M1ii compared to the GH5.

It looks like the Olympus has about a half a stop less dynamic range, and is only 8bit compared to 10bit on the GH5, but the colors still look nicer on the Olympus. And from what I have read, the Olympus has near 6.5 stops of stabilization and clearly beats the GH5. The G9 may be closer to the Olympus than the GH5 with IBIS. And in fact, I think fuzzy is right that the EM5ii has better IBIS than the GH5. Hopefully the E-M5iii will be released soon and best all of the above.

I also have a feeling that Olympus is the next company to watch and think they may actually be the first consumer camera company to offer Raw or ProRes on one of their cams. We’ll see. 

Yes, ideally I'd wait, but I've run out of time before my next trip so I'm picking up a GH5 today.

In the end it was the 10-bit, 4K60, 1080p180, 29 minute limit and the noisy preamps on the EM1ii that swayed me.  Even if the image and stabilisation is nicer, those are still differences I can't get past unfortunately.  The EM1ii looks like a much better camera for stills, especially with PDAF and the 50MP sensor shift, but I'm almost 100% video so it's just not the right match for me.

11 hours ago, wolf33d said:

I think it’s mainly a question of resolution. 

In most of the mentionned cameras we get upscaled 720p thus poor looking images. It’s true that the bitrate is also too low for Sony for example.

Of course..  I didn't think of that.   It's like they're cheating lol

record 360p and upscale in camera to 4K.....

6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think most of these newer cameras have got auto WB, auto Exposure down to a tee anymore. So most stuff is coming out popularly exposed. And heck they have more DR now than ever. So in essence it is getting harder to screw stuff up unless you goof up, are in a pretty terrible situation. Even these new Logs, C Log, N Log, F Log are not a crazy Log like say Sony S Log 3 is. So they are more forgiving, for most stuff,  most people shoot. And NLE's have gotten better also. More auto correction stuff available. So it is just easier to get it right, right in camera. Is it as good as it can be, well no. But good enough for most viewers.

People with great editing, grading, coloring skills are Always going to shine on their output. But the gap is getting narrower every year, and the camera gap narrows also.. You could really take some of these new mirrorless cameras and put the guts in a normal Cine body and no one would be the wiser. They are getting that good.

I agree.

Lots of people are saying "this 4K RAW isn't that much better than our best H264 cameras, how disappointing" when I think they should be saying "wow, our H264 cameras weren't completely put to shame by this 4K RAW camera, how things have changed since the BMPCC, and aren't we spoiled for choice now!".

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The problem with tests like these is they may as well be a review of the tester's grading skills.

Ever since RAW and LOG first came out we have had the same issue - are we watching badly graded footage or is the camera to blame?

I totally agree.

I watched the 2012 Zacuto camera challenge recently (doing it blind as they suggested) and ended up putting the cameras in three tiers, which I found out afterwards were basically sorting them by price!  The only exception to that was the F65 which I placed in the middle tier instead of the top tier because I didn't like the grade.

I think there are two ways to properly execute a camera comparison - set the cameras to their flattest profile and show the files untouched out of the camera having only done a WB, or use a colour checker and have the NLE grade it for you using the full checker so it can linearise the luminance and adjust primaries and all that stuff.  Otherwise, like you say, we're evaluating their grade and not the camera.

Has anyone compared the P4K to the BMPCC by downscaling the P4K to 1080 and then comparing?  Sharpness and resolution have a lot to do with things being cinematic...

That file that Philip Bloom uploaded is pretty interesting.

I have very little experience with grading high-end footage, but this seems to be really gradable and very difficult to break.

Here's a frame without any processing linked at the bottom of this post.

and the waveform:

If I adjust levels to use the full height then I get this:

and using contrast and pivot we can push it up or down a really long way...

There is a little noise there on the guys jacket, but it doesn't look like fixed pattern, and this is pushing it until it breaks.  Crazy stuff.

Thanks to Philip Bloom for the file

PB BMPCC4K test footage Untouched_1.1.1.tif

49 minutes ago, MattH said:

I watched half of if before being compelled to write the comment.  I will watch the rest.      Maybe I should have said "I thought I was a big-shot cinematographer, but then I realised I was a one man band videographer".       As technically in the age of digital there isn't a hard and fast distinction between the two.   Its just that Reds seem to be used on big budget projects, tipically feature films, whereas he clearly makes talking head corporate videos.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a high quality camcorder would do the job.

IIRC he said something about wanting to improve his outputs.  I'm not quite sure if that was in output or in learning, but he's hardly the first to think that new equipment will help creatively.

Unfortunately it can be true sometimes, new equipment can inspire, or challenge you to work in a new way, or make you overcome new challenges and learn something useful etc.

2 minutes ago, MattH said:

Why the hell did he buy it in the first place?  Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something.  Clearly more money than sense.

Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"

Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised.   Rich people problems.  

Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.

Good points.  He does talk a little about why he bought it in the video so I'd recommend watching it if you haven't already.

What is your definition of cinematographer vs videographer?  Not being sarcastic - I googled this very thing some time ago and there didn't seem to be much consensus.

People have commented before that many people will buy the P4K and then get a shock and sell/return it and others have said that if it didn't do RAW internally then there probably wouldn't be the hype around it that there is.  I think these are symptoms of it being a cinema camera and people not understanding the differences.  The original pocket kind of taught the average person a bit about the difference, but I think this version will have quite an effect on people.

They will realise the file sizes are huge, they're not good all-in-one solutions like an A6500, and most importantly that RAW won't make them a better cinematographer.  I've looked at RAW RED footage before and been surprised and disappointed because it wasn't magical.  

I think the Ferrari is a good analogy, except if the analogy was that people were trying to take it off-road.  It can do it, but it's really not the best tool for the job.

2 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Sorry kye, that’s not how I understood your comments, and you are a pretty articulate man.

But what I wonder about is how you come up with how AF suddenly doesn’t matter to you anymore.

Which bits Jon?  I've said a few things

In terms of me moving away from AF, it's a complete change in philosophy.  I'm moving from wanting a camera to record whatever shots I can see (and therefore being really flexible), to having a camera that I love the images of and then just accepting that it won't capture everything I want.  In that sense, I think I want manual primes, and potentially vintage ones.  Once I switched philosophies in my head I worked out what that setup would look like and it makes sense that approaching my work in a different way would mean the equipment would be quite different too.

I shot a few videos testing various elements of the setup and concluded that MF is fine if I get good focus assists.  I shoot in MF for my kids sports games anyway so I'm kind of used to it.

6 minutes ago, Chrad said:

Isn't the whole point of the big monitor that this is a pocket camera and you don't need an external monitor? 

If you need to rig up a monitor to mount external power without some unorthodox rigging whatsit designed to prevent blocking the view of the screen, then the rear monitor is just a waste of space and energy. 

Or are you saying this isn't a real cinema camera because they included a screen on the back? 

Broken design: halfway between a cinema camera that requires rigging and a low form factor device, in ways that are trampling on each other. The least they could have done here is add a hinge for the screen and then this would be a non-issue.

You don't need anything - just put a lens on it and go.  Sure, the battery doesn't last long, but it lasts long enough for some people.  If you want longer battery life then put on a V-Mount, and if you put it at the back then add an external screen too.  Rig it as large as you like, then it's like a normal cinema camera.  My point is that if you get the brain of a real cinema camera then you can't even put a lens on it, let alone record any footage.

This is both a "pocket" camera AND a cinema camera.  Most cameras this size aren't good cinema cameras rigged up, and no cinema camera is this size.  They've designed it for both and everyone is moaning that it's not perfect.  It's not perfect - neither is any other camera.

I agree that a hinge on the screen would have been nicer.  But for a cinema camera, it's a bonus they gave us a screen at all.

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I have to say that my takeaway from it was wondering why he bought it in the first place because those list of reasons in his description were all there before he wrote the cheque.

I'm not sure it particularly validates the P4K either to be honest as that camera wouldn't move the story on significantly for him either in a lot of those criteria that he listed against the RED.

• * My clients don’t need or ask for 4K  - So its no different there.
• * I don’t end up taking it because I’m worry about it getting stolen and it is so heavy - Obviously different there.
• * The batteries only last an hour, so I have to bring a bunch - So its no different there.
• * No autofocus (which matters more when you’re a one man band or are filming yourself) - Obviously different there.
• * I find the image is actually really noisy. - From what I've seen, the Pocket4K will be a win there.
• * Filming with it is just slower and more work. - So its no different there due to it sharing the same issues he lists in his next 4 points.
• * Footage takes a longer time to backup. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
• * Takes longer to make proxies. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
• * Takes longer to export. - So its no different there (relative to the type of cameras he lists that he does want to use in his last point)
• * No built-in ND Filters - So its no different there.
• * No built-in XLRs - Its singular but obviously different there.
• * $1750 for the module with a mic input jack + HDMI/SDI out - Obviously different there!
• * Really want to go back to using hybrid cameras (I hate packing two kinds of cameras for photo + video needs) - So its no different there.

I think the video could equally have been called "Why I Don't Need A 4K RAW Cinema Camera Irrespective Of How Much It Costs" as when it comes to the most important aspects the only difference between the two is where the decimal point is in the price.

Totally agree.

I think I worded that part of my post badly..  I should have separated the two points, that Caleb said the RED was a mistake for a number of reasons, and that MY interpretation of those reasons applied to the P4K.

Like @Mattias Burling said - this is a cinema camera.  If you accept that it's a cinema camera then it needs to be understood in that context.  Including the size...  for a cinema camera it may as well be called the Black Magic Microscopic Cinema Camera!

It's another effect of convergence of technology.  People who are part of the DSLR revolution don't understand how cinema cameras work (thus the complaining about the battery life, screen, file sizes, AF, etc) and so they compare it to cameras of the same price or physical size.   Just like you wouldn't do any serious overall comparison between a $1000 iPhone camera and a $1000 DSLR because they're the same price (what do you mean the camera can't make phone calls???), or a 5D with a film camera because they're the same shape (why doesn't the 5D take Ektar???), comparing the P4K with A7III GH5 etc also makes no sense because they're built for completely different things.

10 minutes ago, Chrad said:

Usually a battery is placed behind the camera on a real cinema camera, but you can't do that here without obstructing your view of the screen.

I wonder how people see the screen on the back of their real cinema cameras?

53 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Regarding HFR bitrate, it doesn't need to be very high because HFR footage have very small motion difference in between frames, which is highly efficient for interframe compression.

That's a good point, and also explains why some footage looks ok and other things don't.

Assuming you shoot with a 180 degree shutter then people running will be a lot easier to compress in HFR, but if you're shooting a waterfall then it's the opposite - the 180 shutter will blur the water droplets in normal speed but in HFR many more droplets are visible because they're moving a lot slower during each exposure, and so there's heaps and heaps of fine detail to fit into the bit-rate.

I guess the moral of the story is that consumer cameras are ok to film your cat in slow motion, but if you're travelling and want to film the town waterfall then it's got to be a cinema camera recording RAW ???

21 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

Philip Bloom has shared a small edit which he says is from one continuous shot. He’s also given a link to download the original file... it’s 22gb.

I'm downloading it.

If anyone has any questions or requests for things I can (quickly / easily) do in Resolve, just ask

6 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

At least I’m not worried about battery life... my cFast card (128Gb £275) records for three minutes (UHD raw uncompressed 60fps). And I’ve got six Canon LPE6s so I should be ok.

Said in jest, obviously. I’ll never record uncompressed raw. And I have 2 500Gb T5s on order.

But the other half did seem pleased that she wouldn’t have to sit through more than 180s of my cinematic holiday films!

A three minute film is a good length..  just edit in-camera like first year of film-school and you'll be set!

That is fantastic footage.

In a way it's still a "trick" kind of like the bullet time effect by swinging it around your head on a string, but it's probably much more useful for the GoPro action camera crowd who want shots of mucking around by the pool or whatever.

The IQ is still pretty bad though, and notably all those shots are wide.  Wide shots are better for these cameras as essentially you're cropping in to get a tighter angle so with a low bit-rate 4K codec anything tighter than perhaps 15-25mm is going to look like Youtube in 240p.

When these things get affordable 8K they will take over.  Everyone will have a smart phone and one of these to video their family or whatever.  Being able to hold it out in front of you while you're mucking around in the park and then be able to choose camera angles in post like every 1-shot, 2-shot, and group shot combination had a camera recording it is completely next level.  

You can have a normal camera that records 16K RAW and it still won't capture the funny moment AND all the reactions to it.  This will automatically record everything.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

One technique I’ve used, especially when shooting with the GH5 and pointing the camera at a subject for as long as minutes at a time, is to intentionally sway the camera a bit from side to side.

The reason being, if I try holding the camera too steady for long periods of time, my arms would fatigue and I’d introduce jitter into the shot, no matter how good the IBIS. And a little side to side camera movement is more interesting to watch than a completely static shot anyhow.

And lo and behold, I was just watching an easyrig tutorial where the photographer recommends doing just that.

I did a bunch of that on my last trip actually, kind of like a fake sideways slider shot.  It's harder to do at longer focal lengths but I had success in staying within the IS of my XC10 with perhaps 60% of the shots I tried.  

I found the trick was to make sure neither leg was straight, hold the camera steady and "fix" your upper body so it's all rigid (but not tensed) and then after you slowly breathe out to just take your eyes off the screen, or just kind of let them go soft-focus, and then just move from one leg to the other while holding your upper body motionless.  I found that if I looked at the screen then I was tempted to rotate the camera to keep an object in the same spot in the frame, and that means that your upper body isn't fixed and you're now slowly rotating the camera, which means that the IS has to sense you're now panning and all the shakes are likely to return because you're moving slightly.  If you are looking at the screen then it will be motionless if you're holding it within the IS range, but if you go outside of that then you'll see movement in the screen, which will prompt you to try and move to compensate, and often that movement will mean you shake more, and it all goes downhill from there.

In any case, it's better just to rock back and forwards a few times, partly because it gives you a chance to relax and kind of practice, but also it gives you flexibility in post of choosing which direction you want the shot to slide in

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Olympus is the best but Panasonic is very close behind. Olympus looks more natural compared to Panasonic; sometimes you get weird warping with the Panasonic depending on the lens, etc. though that's generally only when you move / shake too much. They're both definitely tops when it comes to mirrorless ILC. I've never been impressed with Sony's ibis and never used The X-H1. I don't have any experience with iPhones, but the stabilization on my LG V20 is generally pretty bad, though it's acceptable when shooting wide. 

I'd probably go with Panasonic if I'm shooting with vintage primes and using it more for video work in general. They just have more video features than Olympus, though if Olympus ever came out with a GH5 equivalent I'd seriously consider it over the GH5. 

Thanks, that's useful.  I did wonder if the GH5 was 90% of the Oly or 60% or how close it was.  The GH5 has so much else going for it to take into consideration.

My iPhone 8 (not plus) has pretty good IS actually.  I am frequently impressed with it stabilising when I didn't think it would, like if you're shooting and moving or if there's a gust of wind or whatever.  Unfortunately these things are all relative - someone with steady hands will say something is great but those with a bit more movement will have no success with it, so it's hard to judge if people haven't compared both options over a period of time.

11 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

And I bet for low budget fast paced shoots (such as when you need to knock out a half a dozen corporate interviews in just a single afternoon) then having two matching cameras is very handy. 

Am quite tempted to myself buy a 2nd Sony PMW-F3

So basically he lost $5K over a year and a half, which is both a lot and "not too bad", depending on your perspective. 

Having two cameras is handy..  for the price of the RED anyone could have 3, 4, 5, or more P4K rigs, and those combined would probably be comparable in terms of weight and size.

My take-away from Calebs video was that he thought that buying the RED was a mistake because of a number of reasons, most of which the P4K doesn't suffer with.

10 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@kye I guess I should clarify I’m not taking a piss on the Pocket - and in no way, shape or form would I claim the a7 III has nicer color or a better codec than the P4K. I still think both you and I are waiting to see how this whole thing plays out before plunking more money down. 

I understand

I'm not waiting anymore.  I've had a few people recommend I get the EM1 mk2 over the GH5 because of the IBIS, but I'm not sure because the Oly has some other limitations.  Either way, I've got some vintage lenses and adapters on the way, and I'm planning on buying something this week.  I leave for India in about 3 weeks and was going to shoot it with the GF3 but the wife talked me into upgrading before the trip instead of afterwards when I was planning on it, so that the footage from the trip is nicer.

5 minutes ago, TurboRat said:

It's fine that you consider the P4k as a cinema camera since it has a 'Cinema' on it and interestingly not a 'Pocket' camera. Everybody have their own preference and should not influence your own. 

Honestly it's still debatable for the new P4k to be grouped with the Reds or Arris. Will wait for EBU or other technical bodies for their tests. 

That said I think the concerns about the P4k are the result of comparisons with existing cameras like the A7III, Fuji, Pana mirrorless. It's clear that Blackmagic's target market for the P4k are non-Red/C100 using consumers hence the comparison

"Cinema" and "Pocket" are both in the title, and let's be honest, it's reaching for both.  Cinema is a stretch because it doesn't have SDI outs, and a range of other things that a Venice or RED or ARRI would have.  Is it fair to compare the $1300 camera with a $100K camera because it has "cinema" in the title?  No, so we're not doing that.  That kind of a comparison is unreasonable because the cameras are for vastly different users and offer vastly different features at vastly different prices.

And yet because it has the word "Pocket" in the name we're comparing it to genuine pocket cameras.  I say that kind of comparison is also unreasonable, also because the cameras are for vastly different users and offer vastly different features at vastly different prices.

Then we compare it to cameras that neither claim to be pocketable or to be cinema cameras, and don't have the features or form-factor of pocket or cinema cameras, like the A7III or 5D or GH5, but somehow this is a fair comparison for batteries.

And we do so because we don't want to buy a few extra and carry them in a bag with the lenses, filters, and media cards that we are inevitably carrying around, or if we want long battery life we're not willing to buy an external solution?  If it came with 10 spare batteries, a V-Mount with mounting hardware, and cost a few hundred extra then people would moan that they're paying for things they don't need.  If it came with a larger internal battery then people would moan that it was too large.

All this talk makes me wonder if anyone understands the concept of things being "modular".

In terms of everyone having their own preference, I think it's designed perfectly - it can be used in either a small setup or a large one, making this the flexible approach to meet everyones needs.  Making it heavier to hold or requiring a larger gimbal for those willing to swap batteries and wanting a small and light setup is imposing your views on those users.

4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

But why bother with a V-mount when in a couple years, all hybrids on the market will shoot 2 hours or more on a single battery? And FF 8K is the next revolution after HDR for sure. I’m not being argumentative - I’m just stating where I see the industry headed. 

It is where it's heading and I agree.  It's just pretty damn difficult to film something today with next years camera!

Comparing the P4K to cameras in the future should wait until we get those "P4K vs A7SIII vs Panasonic S1 mkII vs GH7" or "P4K in 2021" threads that are inevitable.

Mostly EOSHD talks about cameras in a relatively sane way, but this thread has started to remind me of those smartphone reviewers who give a 1 star rating because the included AI doesn't make their bed for them.

I haven't flown myself, but I've seen a lot of YouTubers go up and it seems like a tough environment.  Apart from the motion of the heli I think I've also noticed that it's really windy up there?  Especially when you get the doors open and are hovering (not going with the wind) and that's the time you want to take shots!  I seem to remember the wind potentially blowing the cameras around a bit.

Maybe someone with experience can confirm?

14 hours ago, wolf33d said:

With the new players (Z7, XT3, upcoming S1...) I think it would be cool to re-give the prize for best 120p in the market. 

@Andrew Reid you have both the XT3 and Z7, which one is better in 120p? Any footage comparison planned? 

All good 120p cameras now do good quality for close up (like a portrait and big bokeh) but you can easily tell them appart when you film a wide busy scene with water and grass for example: this is what is interesting to compare. 

Worth putting in the comparison IMO: A7III / RX100 / Z7 / XT3 / GH5 / 1DX2  and soon S1 and A7SIII

Great thread.

Wouldn't it just be a matter of bitrate though?  120 is difficult in those busy deep DoF shots because the amount of data available for each frame is low and the IQ suffers accordingly because there's so much information in the frame to try and fit into that limited data.

I never understood why manufacturers didn't just scale the bitrate up with the frame rate - the idea of slow motion is to conform to the native frame rate..  

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I watched that video last night in fact, and it was pretty good. But I continue to stick to my position above. Just months after the release of the a7 III, suddenly the entire industry is into FF mirrorless. I predict the next step will be RAW. And both you and I prefer long battery life (one of the issues with the Red), IBIS and AF - or am I wrong?

I want IBIS and was also wanting AF until I recently changed approach.  If I didn't need either then I would be all over this camera like a rash.  I would just buy a few more batteries.

If anyone doesn't like changing batteries then get a V-Mount and power it externally, the port is there.

If some camera company turns around tomorrow and releases an 8K RAW camera that has 27 years of battery life then it doesn't change how good this camera is, or the fact that there are plenty of battery options, both for the people who want a small setup or those who want to rig it up and have a large one that will run all day.

and if anyone doesn't like that it has the word "Pocket" in the name and it doesn't fit in your pockets then I really don't know what to say....

I think this thread needs a reality check, and luckily Caleb Wojcik just posted one.

Some of the points he made were:

• He loves the image but the camera is a pain to use and so often stays at home in favour of his 2 x C100 mk2
• It was expensive, and the battery life, proprietary accessories like touchscreen, storage, media readers, handle, chargers, and everything else cost about $25K US about two years ago
• In fact it was so expensive that he left it locked up because of fear of using it (despite having insurance)
• It's hugely heavy and impractical to use, he had to buy four batteries because two wasn't enough, and it basically requires a team to build and operate it

In summary - two years ago one of the most affordable cinema cameras cost $20K plus, was such a PITA to use that he didn't take it places, and he used C100s instead.

Now in 2018, they release a 4K60 RAW cinema camera that costs less than 10% of the above RED, is smaller than the C100s but a significant margin, gets similar battery life, is easily hand-holdable, works with all kinds of third-party accessories, and comes with a free copy of an industry leading NLE.

Anyone who bitches about the battery life, size, cost or anything like that clearly don't have the faintest idea what a real cinema camera is like.

Get a grip - you're just embarrassing yourselves.

22 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The GF1 is built closer in design to the GX series. 
While after the GF1 the GF series when more consumer/entry/compact design with their series. 

I don't know about the ergonomics of them (the GF3 is nice though) but the difference I remember was that there was one control configuration that the GF1 had that the later models didn't have, and the reviews I read of the GF1 were saying that was the killer feature.  IIRC it was something you don't get unless you got for much larger and more expensive bodies (how the pro bodies have more control wheels) but then the larger bodies aren't as great for travel.

Anyway, good times - if only they had built in 8K RAW video and we'd still be using them today!!

10 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

If that's your goal, I, personally, would take one of the Olympus cameras.  

Not sure what your'e ultimately going after in your long term goals, but as an example, when I finished shooting my latest doc this summer, I did a debrief session with my wife and we figured that we probably should have shot the film on EM5II's instead of GH5's. 

Yes, the IQ is wildly better with the LUMIX flagship model, but the EM5II is a much cheaper camera.  That would have opened up a few grand for the other MORE IMPORTANT parts of the budget - and that's so, so much more pragmatic than an edge in IQ.  Also, the EM5II is just more adept in crazy handheld situations....which 80% of the doc ended up being.

The Oly cams have quirks you have to adapt to, but nothing that's sways me enough to avoid them.  For instance, you have to set white balance.  Auto-WB drifts too much.  The image on the EM5II will alias when shooting super sharp modern glass. (newer 4K OLY models are clean) The on-board pre-amps aren't great, but when paired with my Sennheiser ew100 kit, it works well enough. 

So, I look at your photograph above and think, yeah, I could easily do a decent dolly/so-mo cheat in that situation with my old EM5II.  The GH5?  Eh, not so much.

That's my anecdote anyway.  Balance your choice with all you do.  So many cams these days are more than capable.

Thanks

I watched a few reviews of the Oly's and those quirks seemed a pretty big price to pay for me.  I do pretty well with the XC10 so I suspect that I have relatively steady hands.

I think that's the state of the camera market at the moment, there are cameras with spectacular specs but also significant weaknesses, and real-life always requires a balance of performance across most of the features.  The pic I posted is an extreme example but it happens enough for it to be what I need to plan for rather than the exception.

8 hours ago, frontfocus said:

https://kolarivision.com/nikon-z7-dissasembly-teardown/

after disassembling a Z7 they claim, that the IBIS moves even less than in a Sony. But the Video looks nice, much more like Panasonic or Fuji than Sony. Olympus is still a tiny bit better, at least for photography. 

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Here are their exact words:

We were surprised to find that the Nikon Z7’s shaker itself does not move very much compared to Sony and others. Despite this, Nikon still claims a CIPA image stabilization rating of 5-stops, where the A7R III claims 5.5.

With IBIS there are three things that I see to consider:

• How far the sensor can move
• How much motion is left when it is stabilising within its working range (stops, EV)
• What behaviour happens when it gets close to the edges

My personal opinion is that how far it can move is more important than how many stops of motion are left.  The difference between 5 and 5.5 stops is nothing if one of those sensors can stabilise your hand shake and the other one can't travel far enough and has to let some motion bleed through.  

If we were to get those two cameras and shake the shit out of them while both were in their working stabilisation range then you wouldn't be able to tell much difference between 5 and 5.5 stops, but if one is within its range and the other isn't then the comparison would be between 5 and 1 stops, or 5 and zero stops, which will be night and day.

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I really really should do this myself, as it is a smart idea, but I'm lazy.... however it would also be so simple to do.

I'd encourage you to also do it..  it's a bit of work to set it up, but once it's setup it has very very little maintenance.  I auto-pay the hosting invoices and every couple of years I have to renew the domain name, but unless there's a problem that's basically it.

If you have tech questions then PM me, happy to help

Interesting video interview of Yosuke Yamane at Photokina on the origin of the S1..

Of note was the part where he says "In developing full frame cameras, we have decided to target professionals in both photography and videography categories".

I'm not sure how good the translation on this is, but it's unlikely that it's an error saying that it's targeting professional videographers.  He was talking about the ergonomics at the time, but I think it extrapolates.  He also spoke about how they've lead the market previously and the culture around their camera development is of new challenges and bringing things to customers that exceeds other companies offerings.  

Of course, who knows what that really means - 4K RAW, 4K60, 6K, 8K, or if it's just a FF GH5(s), but it's probably a good sign from our point of view about the video specs.