newfoundmass

Sports in general are very restrictive. You almost always need permission to use the content. Generally when there is money on the line they don't want you using their content. Unfortunately after that video came out the price of those technical tripods doubled. ? But they're still significantly cheaper than other options. I love finding out of the box ideas like that though. A PC and software set up is kind of cheaper and generally an all in one solution. Since the software can also do more advanced graphics, switch, stream, and record it's appealing to some. My preferred set up is a hardware switcher feeding into an external recorder (for a higher quality recording and clean edit) outputting to a PC where you do the graphics, streaming, and program recording. In the event something goes wrong, worse case scenario you've got a high quality clean edit to work with that you can add the graphics to and upload for streaming. You're also taxing the PC significantly less. With the PC VMix set up we always had something going wrong; the stream would go great but the program recording would have audio sync issues or in the summer the PC itself would overheat, resulting in a myriad of issues. We're not working in world class venues with air conditioning: we're in venues with no/insufficient AC with 500 to 1000 people in sweltering August weather. We'd bring high powered external fans with us and have them blowing on the PC trying to keep it from overheating! ? In controlled environments, with less intense workloads, I'm sure PC set ups with VMix or OBS are fine. I know that's a set up most live steamers use these days. But when you're producing an actual program, with dozens of animated overlays and lower thirds, etc. I'm just not sold. Yep. I KINDA get the NBA, NFL, etc doing it since they make insane amounts on TV rights fees, but these small pro sports leagues doing it are kinda silly. But whatever.

All of my most recent work is behind pay walls or pay per download / DVD. I'll ask my clients if they mind me posting something though! I've thought about that for my tripod but honestly it's not worth it. My hope is to soon buy one of those 12 foot tripods as seen here: Height is important when you're shooting above crowds I've done tons of live switching in the past and am doing multicam edits right now. My old company, for live switching, used PXW-X70's because of the SDI out. I haven't done any live streams since parting ways with them (long story, it's a legal matter now) but I'm actually looking into doing it with my GH5 & G85's once I'm in a position to do so. We used a custom PC rig with Vmix, though I've always preferred hardware switchers in the past since I've found they're more reliable.

I shoot a lot of sports with the GH5 and G85, mostly handheld and up close to the action: My go to lens for handheld is the Panasonic 12-35mm f/ 2.8. I use single point auto focus and it works really well. I find it to be very reliable, and the f/2.8 handles the less than ideal lighting conditions I'm usually shooting in pretty well. I use a cage with top handle and wooden grip. With dual IS I don't need a monopod or any other support, it's wonderful. I'm literally running around a wrestling ring and I'm still blown away at how stable my shots are. My "hard camera" shot is a G85 with kit lens. I'm saving up to get another 12-35 and the 35-100 f/2.8 to match. After next month I should be in a place to get both. For a tripod I use the Magnus VT-350; it's cheap and far from the best tripod BUT it goes up to 82" which gives it considerably more height than most tripods. I just wish that you could replace the tripod head. For audio I use the Rode Video Micro on the GH5, but it's mostly for scratch audio and crowd noise since commentary is being recorded live into a Zoom recorder that is also feeding audio into the G85. I also usually put a Zoom H1 under the ring to make the moves sound better. For me external monitors aren't ideal for sports. The lag for HDMI ones, though slight, is still enough to cause issues. I should note that I also shoot events from start to finish as opposed to clips, since I'm editing the entire event to be streamed online or on DVD/Blu Ray (yes that still is a thing!) So shooting slow motion, etc normally isn't in the cards. For your use I'd consider maybe a B4 lens with a x2 extender as a zoom option? Those can get great reach.

Most consumers don't know anything about sensor size, etc. It's really only in this prosumer/professional bubble that people are obsessed with full frame cameras. Meanwhile I'm happy over here with my M43 and next month is set to be my most profitable month ever!

Wild to see the prices drop so quickly from both Nikon and Canon. Whether it's due to slow sales or attempting to undermine Panasonic, I'd be very upset if I'd bought the camera before these price drops because the potential resale value has plummeted. Definitely not something I'd want to do to the early adopters.

Obviously not an ILC but the AG-DVX200 has a four thirds sensor. It's pretty popular as an ENG camera. Two of the local network affiliates use them. Like you though I'm surprised more video cameras haven't been released with those large sensors, both ILC and fixed lens options. Guessing people have decided the market for these aren't interested / don't care?

I am in agreement in that cinema camera means different things for everyone. I do though think there's generally an understanding as to what a cinema camera is, and what makes a camera a "cinema camera." I also though think that almost any camera can be turned into a cinema camera. Rig up a GH5 or GH5s with everything you need and it's a more than capable "cinema camera." Even a hacked EOS M can be made into a cinema camera.

For $14 I'd try taking it apart and see if I could clean it!

A monopod?! You cheater! Real pros go handheld, bro!

I love Christopher Meloni

Jordan, did you find the size to be kind of an issue while shooting handheld video? At first I was like, "this isn't so bad," but by hour two of holding it up I was like "why Panasonic, why?!" Am I just a wimp?!

I mean, that's cool, but I have no desire to run around a 18 foot by 18 foot pro wrestling ring for 4 hours with a heavy camera and lens when the GH5 exists. ? I don't want them to be fragile, I just don't want a heavy camera to carry around all day.

It depends on what kind of handheld work. Carrying that around for a 3-4 hour sporting event, no thanks! Gimme my GH5! For shorter events or narrative work, I think it'd be great.

What are your primary uses going to be? The size of the S1 is huge compared to the XT3 and the GH5. My preference is to have a small set up. The GH5 nails that for me. I just can't justify carrying it around. With that said, obviously you can get incredible images from the S1. That full frame really does deliver superior image quality. I do mostly handheld work, and the S1 just isn't ideal for that. Ultimately you just need to compare the benefits and negatives and choose which one best works for you.

I got to use the S1 today. What a lovely camera BUT after using it I have less interest than I did before. The size is the killer for me. I really, really liked it, and at first was like "I'm gonna end up buying one, ugh why am I like this?!" But by the middle of the day, I was over having to carry around such a large camera. It just isn't worth it to me. But you can get some really lovely footage straight out of camera. The green here in Vermont is just starting to show itself again after a cold, cold winter and it looks excellent. Panasonic's color science is improving more and more. The limitations are there though that the GH5 doesn't have, but they aren't as big of a deal breaker as I thought; as I used it the size though was too much. I'm a big, strong guy, but I don't want to carry that around with me for hours, especially after having had the GH3, GH5 and G85 these past 8 years. Shooting a sports event with it would suck unless I put it on a shoulder rig to help distribute the weight, and I haven't bothered using mine in forever. Who needs to with how light the GH5 is with its excellent stabilization? The kit lens is excellent. Probably the greatest kit lens I've ever used. The auto focus was decent. If you know how to get the best out of the GH5's auto focus then you're good to go. But it will forever remain a weak point for most people who think they need Sony and Canon level AF. And I'm at a point where, even though I am content with the auto focus, I recognize that they need to change course, if not for the improvements but to take away something that people have used to knock Panasonic cameras since the beginning. I'm tired of hearing about it. It's time. I'm hoping to get some time with the Z6 soon. I'm still quite intrigued by it, because I genuinely love that Nikon has really attempted to make serious strides in video.

Honestly the LS300 is still a very relevant MFT cinema camera, especially if you use the Ninja package. It's a steal at this point, in my opinion. With that said, yes, I'd very much like someone to release a new cinema camera with the MFT mount.

Hell yeah! ??

I know quite a few artist friends that are using tablets for drawing / illustration now. I think you can do some light video editing on the latest iPad, too. Like videos under 10 minutes. I know my buddy that works for the local CBS affiliate was looking into it very recently. I know a writer that uses a cheap Windows 10 tablet and Bluetooth keyboard to write instead of a laptop now. To me, I say use whatever gets the job done. If you can do your work on an iPad or tablet, right on!

The ads are very grating too! Very much targeted towards millennials, which I am one, but they feel like they're targeted for 20 year old "content creators" as opposed to someone like me.

As long as they're letting us know it's in beta I'm fine with Blackmagic doing it cause I can decide whether or not to download it. Adobe? Not so much.

Has anyone else experienced an influx of Adobe Creative Cloud ads on YouTube lately? Not sure if it's related, but it seemed to happen almost immediately after I started looking up Resolve tutorials. No exaggeration, it's like every other ad for me.

I enjoy Chris and Jordan's videos. I think overall they do a good job reviewing cameras, are honest in their reviews, and I've found that when using cameras they've reviewed I come to a lot (but not all) of the same conclusions. I don't really go to DPReview's main site and skip their other YouTube content, but I enjoy Chris and Jordan. There are also, I think, substantially more users there. Which is why Andrew is frustrated; his links being censored there harms his traffic and, frankly, deprives readers access to more knowledge.

It's cool if you liked it but... It had a 1 inch sensor with a f/2.8-5.6 lens for $2500. Saying it was the worst camera of the year might've been overstating it, but given the options that were available at the time for substantially less? Yeah, it was a bit of a dud unless you're a hardcore Canon shooter. Only after the incompetence Canon has shown these past couple of years have people warmed up to it. But people had higher expectations and the XC10 fell well beneath most of them.

If you're looking for the best value you can't beat Sony, whether it's their handy cams or their professional camcorders. As someone that has done live event videography for the last 20 years I've always preferred them to Canon, especially because they've generally had superior low light performance which was always important when you had little, if any, control over lighting. I'd prefer the PXW-X70 with 4K over the XA40. I've been intrigued too by the JVC offerings, especially given how much I love the LS300. Cameras like the GY-HM170UA looks like a pretty good bargain and has a lot of the features that the LS300 has. I wish they'd bring their menu system into the 2010s, or even the 2000s, though! ?

Can we be real about resolution, honestly? From a PRODUCTION standpoint I get wanting higher and higher resolution. I have no real desire for 8K (and higher), 4K is more than enough given everything I do is pretty much edited for 1080p, but I do get why others want it. From a delivery standpoint though? I have a 55 inch 4K television. I watch some 4K content but most is 1080p. Truth be told, unless I'm within a couple feet of the TV I can't see much difference between 1080p and 4K content. I don't think most people can tell the difference unless they have a giant 4K TV. Simply put, for most of us, the size of the televisions we'll be able to afford makes 8K feel like a marketing gimmick more than anything. I watched this on my 4K television and frankly I've seen stuff in 1080p and stuff shot in 4K that looked just as good as this. Like, what are we really doing here? I feel like I'm the old man yelling at the clouds, but this is all so very silly to me. What size 8K television (or hell, 4K television!) would I need to really be able to truly appreciate this, and other videos, shot at such a high resolution?