KnightsFan

I own a GH5S. It's brilliant. Low light is not a problem. DoF is really not a problem. I can shoot in C4K at 60p with a 1.8x crop factor. I have the creative freedom to shoot at 180 FPS for a particular shot. I can put a speedbooster on it and slap a Canon EF lens on it and have a 1.15x crop factor (a 70-200mm F2.8 will be a 80.5-230 F3.2 DoF)! I have a great lens selection, because I can adapt almost ANY LENS onto my camera! I have great built in preamps. I have a great native XLR hotshoe adapter for my camera. I have VERY useable autofocus for vlog style shots or something that doesn't need precision AF. I can slap on a 100-400mm f2.8-4 MFT (full frame eq.) telephoto lens that can fit in my f*king pocket and cost 80% the price and 40% the weight.
Micro 4/3 is a great system. I think it's best strengths are in video, especially. I think thats why Olympus is a hard sell anymore. Look at the Kinefinity Terra 4K. It's got basically the same sensor as the GH5s / BMPC4K and can do up to 4K 100fps and 2K up to 240fps. The video is gorgeous. The mount options are extremely flexible. And it's under $10K.
People that say M4/3 isn't good don't know what they're talking about or are so biased they can't admit there are things out there that rival whatever they like.
It can do lowlight (and as sensors improve this won't be an argument anymore)
It can do extreme telephoto inexpensively and without much bulk
It has DoF advantages for telephoto shots
It can be adapted to do shallow DoF if you need it
It allows more creative frame rates in a smaller package (smaller sensor, less heat, etc...)
It can do built in IBIS better than larger sensors (smaller sensor, less inertia, better IBIS...look at the Oly E1X for example...it's basically a built in gimbal)
It can still take great photos
It can take 50MP to 80MP photos of landscapes with Pixel shift tech.

It can't do anything larger than 8K.
It can't replicate exactly the "full frame look".
It can't boost your ego if all you care about is sensor size.
 
Yes, I'm a M4/3 fanboy because the GH5S is a great video camera. The mount is very flexible. The tech in the latest rounds of M4/3 cameras makes it even more flexible. But in general the entire M4/3 system has an image problem because people just can't seem to get over that tiny looking sensor.
At the same time I can see the benefits of full frame cameras and I see advantages in owning both systems. I really wanted Panasonic to knock it out of the park with the S line. I hope they can improve upon the initial launch specs, because it looks like a great camera.

It seems like AI should be able to even the playing field if done right. I mean if the AI can detect a face, contrast shouldn't matter right?

Nice. No mention if he was filming in 4K or 1080p. 4K is much worse.
Have a vlogger use it (it’s got a flip screen right perfectly made for it) have them film in 4K.  Whoops it’s got a 1.7x crop that even at 16-35mm will feel close. Have them walk around filming in 4K and you will feel like you are on acid in some whackey fun house mirror room every time they swing the camera to show you something.
Take a nice ride on a train, a car, or a bus if you prefer. Film out the window in 4K. Doesn’t matter?
Filming some birds in 4K. You track them as you pan with their flight. Enjoy the jello telephone polls, lamp posts, and trees.
It matters.
 
 

I did see an interview with Atomos, but I don't remember that. I hope you're right, it would be a really phenomenal twist for Nikon. If they are that committed to video in their Z series, I'd love to see them tackle some of the other lesser-requested video features like LTC.

When I end up getting a second camera, I’ll probably want something that shoots in 10bit but honestly... I can’t really tell that much of a difference between it and 8bit half the time... I think it’s psychological. Haha. The only time I can really tell is when the acquisition format is better... ie ProRes. 
If I’m being truly honest, I think a lot of these new cameras are boring. I think that maybe this generation of camera tech has peaked and anything going forward, in the foreseeable future, just proves the Law of Diminishing Returns.

I dont recall any word from nikon on internal raw. Does anyone have a source on that? @DBounce brought it up earlier.

+1 - Just use Resolve's integrated conversions.
@blafarm @famoss
In fact, there's a big difference between using the conversions in Resolve and a LUT:
If you use a LUT and the conversion clips any parts of the signal (highlights or shadows) then they're clipped forever and nothing you do after the LUT can get them back. If you use Resolves conversions (either in the Clip properties or via the Colour Space Transform plugin) the clipped values are retained within Resolve (as super-whites or super-blacks) and if you adjust the image after the conversion then you can get them back into the normal range without damaging them. The internet talks a lot about LUTs but that's mainly because the people doing all the talking are selling......  LUTs.
I don't know how the other NLEs work, but I'd imagine they work similarly.
If you have to use a LUT then you can lower the contrast before the LUT to get the output from the LUT within range, but this defeats the purpose of using a LUT in the first place (because your inputs to the LUT now don't match how the camera encoded them) and you may as well just apply contrast or curves to get the look you want and ignore the LUT.

For long-time GH1 to GH5 shooters like myself, loyal from the beginning, at a time everyone else was shooting Canon, the S1 is a milestone. I have a bit of an emotional attachment to it already, being the first Panasonic full frame camera. It is not my first L-mount camera though. I’ve been shooting with the Leica SL for a few years now and it is still the most clean, ergonomic, minimalist full frame mirrorless body. It cannot, however, match the sheer size of the feature-set on the £2000 Panasonic S1.
Read the full article

Why not Nikon be first? 

After all Nikon was first giving us an HDSLR in the first place! ?

(Nikon picked up a few other minor firsts too, like the first 4K APS-C DSLR, and numerous firsts in the photography world)
 
And then Panasonic will release the S1 and Sony will have to delay yet again....
Then Fujifilm releases the X-H2 and Sony has to delay yet again
Until Panasonic will release the GH6 and Sony will have to delay yet again....
 

Amazong. So is this the first hybrid camera to natively offer RAW video? I would never have guessed that Nikon would be first.

Interesting.  I didn't realise that they were keeping Fusion as a standalone product, although that might not be the long-term direction.
I know that in terms of integrating or modifying software significantly, certain bits are a lot easier to get working than other bits.  Maybe the roadmap is to gradually add in the bits that Resolve hasn't enabled yet, or maybe not, who knows
Yeah.  I found it interesting the BM guy searched the forum to see how many times it was mentioned, so maybe they do try and respond to users.  I kind of got the impression that they do, but also they have a strong strategy - integrating an NLE, Fairlight, and now Fusion into Resolve wouldn't have been them responding to forum users!
It was also interesting the BM guy said that it wasn't necessary, and someone countered by pointing out that 8K support also wasn't necessary..  touché!
Agreed.  I noticed a huge difference in crashing between 12.5 and 14, so I think someone really pushed for it to get more reliable.  It went from crashing about every 20 minutes to maybe every 8 hours of use for me, so that's significant.
One thing I can kind of sense is that a lot of the niggling bugs have been around for many versions, so I think they might be harder to get to issues more to do with mashing things together instead of just isolated in one module or whatever.  Things like the "I get no audio" bug which seems to be fixed by anything from muting and unmuting in each panel to changing system output device or messing around with the database, and has been with us since v12.5 and probably before that even.
I agree it's big and blocky.  I alternate between using it on a 13" laptop and using the same laptop with a UHD display.  It's better on the larger display, but it's definitely not as customisable as would be ideal.  
I think this is due to the heritage of it being around for a long time, like most other long-lived software packages look old and inflexible.  In a sense this is something that also runs through the film industry too, so much of the processes, techniques, terminology, etc is rooted in out-of-date technologies or previous limitations that are no longer present.  This is really a symptom of what happens when you take a challenge (make a film) break it up into the steps (shoot, develop, edit, test-screen, picture lock, sound, colour timing, distribute) and then when the technology changes you update each part individually but not the way that it was broken up in the first place.  The things that the film-industry talks about as being revolutionary seem completely ridiculous when viewed from an outside perspective, like the director working with the colourist to create a LUT that was used on-set to preview the look as it's shot, or being able to abandon the idea of the picture-lock by being open to making changes to the edit if the audio mixing discovers any improvements that could be made.
These are obvious no-brainer things if you haven't gotten used to those limitations over time.
In terms of Fairlight I think that's the case too.  Having a mixing desk approach made sense when audio equipment was all analogue, but it's always seemed restrictive to me.  Here's a screenshot of the free modular software-only tracker that I was writing music with about 20-years ago.

Every blue box was an audio generator and every orange one was an effect.  Every arrow had a volume control and every module had an unlimited number of inputs.  Every module could be opened up and adjusted with sliders for each parameter.  Every slider could be automated.  Anyone could develop new modules and share as .DLL files.  
As computers got more powerful you could have more modules.  We got to the point where it became difficult to work with because you couldn't adjust the size of the boxes on the screen and so you'd have stacks of boxes on top of each other.  I used to write tracks like the above where there was a separate effects chain for every instrument, except things like compressors where you want them to drive the whole mix.  My friend used to connect every module to every other module just to see what they sounded like, and he'd get these amazing textures and tones.  He was a big fan of Sonic Youth and apart from writing electronic music with me he also used to play guitar and integrate samples from that, and later on we get into glitch and heavy sampling.  
I think I would have gone insane if I'd been trying to write music limited to the architecture of a mixing desk, or couldn't just right-click and bring up a new module..  what do you mean every reverb instance costs $1000?????

Brusfri is another NR software which is highly affordable that I'd recommend. 
 
It is. And besides, you'd assume everyone should have a DAW and NLE already anyway

Reaper for instance is so cheap everyone should have it!

Thats a fair assessment for whether it is worth the money to you. In fact, i passed on the e2 because i will be using an xt3 on my next project. But thats a similar argument to saying the a7r3 isnt worth more than the a73 because you only need 42 megapixels for specialty purposes.
And as @androidlad points out, there are other benefits. If you want prores on an xt3 you are looking at another $500 for an external recorder anyway. I completely see your point though, and agree that if you dont need the extra features, or if you want those beautiful 26mp photos, the xt3 is a better camera for you.
The truth is, everything is now a product in development. Most major software companies ate switching to rolling updates and away from major versioning. Tesla rolls out software updates for their cars. Ten years ago it would be unthinkable to have to update your car! Its just how the world works now. The good news is Z cam listens to their buyers and is willing to shape their product to fit evolving needs.

No more than you would need for most other cameras. It uses cheap batteries, and you can use an iphone as a wired or wireless monitor. Most other cameras need like a teradek to do that. A side handle is pretty cheap and you can even use it left handed.
Most people considering an e2 would get an external monitor and cage for any camera they got which would puy them at the exact same accessories.
Name a cheaper camera--with or without accessories--with an interchangeable lens and 4k 120 at 10 bit. Name one that also has wireless monitoring for cheaper. You could spend $1k on accessories and still it will be cheapest in its class. The gh5s cost more brand new than this does with a side handle and cheap monitor.
Maybe none of those features speak to your needs. Thats fair if it is not the best value for you. But the price overall seems good for what you get.

"Z CAM E2 is formally ProRes licensed!" -Kinson
Next firmware update will unlock it automatically; in the meantime they posted a method to unlock ProRes manually. Unlike the internal H.265, which is 10 bit 4:2:0, internal ProRes on the E2 has 4:2:2 subsampling.

I wonder how the low light would stack up with a speed booster and some aggressive noise reduction? I mean if you are tearing it down anyway, it would be worth looking into switching to MFT or E mount.

Cinamatic is intention. If you intend it and it has a purpose it can be cinematic. If your gimbal isnt calabrated right and you get jittery footage it's not cinamatic but if it was controlled and intentional like in Saving Private Ryan it certainly could.

Totally agree. I'd rather see the E2 as a polished product before they announce a GS version. But hey, maybe the industrial market will snatch them up?
True.
But... last weekend I went back to some of my REALLY old projects. (The .wmv files no longer play audio in VLC, so I wanted to re-export in a modern codec. Success, btw) They were shot on an old photo camera. 640 x 480, 15 fps. But it was a CCD with intraframe mjpeg in 422! The motion was day and night compared to modern cameras. Really makes me want a GS camera.

It is EXTREMELY RARE to even have a global sensor cinema 4K camera, in fact what notable ones exist....  only the Sony F55 (VERY expensive!) and the flawed BMPC4K

So if someone brings out a low low priced Global Shutter 4K cinema camera then I'm perfectly ok if it is a compromise or there, such as a S16 sensor (merely the same as my BMPCC has). 

Although honestly I wish the rabid global shutter internet deskjockey fanboys had never managed to convince Z Cam in the first instance that a global shutter camera is a worthwhile project, as I'd have rather Z Cam had directed their limited R&D elsewhere. 
 
Arguably you can use the Z Cam straight out of the box (not counting media or lens, which most cameras don't come with), assuming you have a smartphone (as nearly everyone does). 
 

I expect fewer sales for their GS camera than they're expecting. 

Because there are not "many" people who want a Global Shutter camera above all else as their holy grail, there are only very few, but these few are very vocal online and fool people into thinking it is more important than it really is. 
 
 
Well you'd still be needing plenty of lights if a person got the Digital Bolex instead. 
 

The GH5 is a lot more expensive even used, compared to the E2C. The E2C is like if Panasonic had put 4k 10 bit into their G85.
Same thing that already happens when you get a phone call during a shoot... you ignore it and don't ruin the take.
Haha, I kid--it's a valid point. But to be fair, people already use their iphones to shoot serious videos. It's easier to pop the monitor off and make a call on it than to get it out of one of those fancy rig/cage things with the lens on front and everything lol.

The E2C is certainly an interesting new camera. My guess is it's the same sensor as the E1, but with a better processor, and updated I/O to fit with the E2 family. If so, there was minimal R&D involved, just putting together pieces Z Cam was already familiar with. I'm not really interested in buying one, but it seems like a brilliant option for live streamers. POE can really cut cable clutter.
For $800 you can get a brand new camera that shoots 10 bit internally. Amazing how far we've come.
On a more speculative note, a future that I've imagined is using a tiny PC as a recorder. Run ethernet from the camera to the PC, affix an audio interface to the top, and record multi-track audio in sync with the video using your favorite software. No timecode or synchronization needed, just one record button for everything. You can use codec you want, any hard drive you want. Review footage and edit metadata with a full blown OS.
 
It might be, but the E2C is significantly cheaper for a brand new camera, even compared to a used GH4 and a new Ninja V, plus the E2C is a significantly smaller setup. If  you already have an apple phone, your monitor needs are already covered. With the E2C, you get H.265, and I assume it will eventually have ProRes internally. It seems there are advantages to both.

Yup, sounds like simple compression artifacts to me. Downscaling might make it subjectively more pleasant to look at, but won't recover any details that have been mushed. The only real solution would be to use a higher bitrate or better codec to begin with. Raw of course solves every problem, but is usually overkill. High bitrate intraframe codecs are ideal for fast pans, but even using a higher bitrate interframe codec would improve the image.
However, a better acquisition format doesn't fully solve the problem. If you distribute on a streaming service, then it will be compressed into mush, whether you shot in Raw or not. The delivery format is often the limiting factor these days.

Downscaling is essentially adding a blur to your image. It might help reduce compression artifacts--if that is indeed what you are seeing, that was just my first guess without having seen the image itself. You might get better mileage out of a directional blur rather than downscaling.

Good advice for anyone who uses middle grey as an exposure method but using middle grey as and exposure method may not be good advice.....