newfoundmass

sorry just had to ?

"I don’t even want to be part of a conversation where the merits of medium format are in dispute. It is a pointless waste of time."

Oh I dunno....

I think there are very legitimate reasons to not consider using medium format!

Even if their prices dropped to a half, or even a quarter of what they are now. 

Jon's jump from GH5 fanboy to Sony fanboy is wild. 
I wish he wasn't such an intolerant dick and was able to process the notion that we all have different opinions, preferences, and wants. If you don't agree with him and his "facts" you're delusional, an idiot or both. 

10 years on, Panasonic should really be leading things out front.
I don't know whether it is down to a smaller budget, or Panasonic upper-management not allowing total freedom, but it's sad that Sony and Nikon are out front when Panasonic were the ones to pioneer the entire market, at a time others were too scared to make the jump.
If anything dude, you are the one turning into a fanboy.

The GH5 has an ETC mode which will allow you to use your c-mount lenses without vignetting.  Lemme use one of the c-mount lenses I have left over from my BMPCC days tomorrow to check. I think mine is 12.5mm too! A Computar one! 
I use the Viltrox focal reducer with the Sigma 18-35. What a wonderful combo! The Metabones was just too pricey for me, I've been very happy with the Viltrox. Pixco has released a dummy focal reducer too that's $99, if you're not concerned but your lenses communicating with the camera. 
I got the G85 for $600, which included two cheap Olympus lenses that I sold for about $275 total, so the G85 ended up being $325. So if you can find a deal on it you probably won't regret it. Still though, I love my GH5! 

Hi All,
 
first post here so hello. When self shooting i use the LS300 with an Atomos Shogun and Samyang primes. As mentioned without the Shogun and its focus peaking you would need an external monitor or an EVF. However, despite this drawback the image quality (in my opinion) is great.
This was all shot with the JVC apart from 2 clips.
 
cheers

I disagree, the flat look works with the story and enhances the mood. Nice one! 
Will you post the full movie, or are you submitting it somewhere?

You're comparing stills. 

We're discussing filmmaking. 

Look at video output. As the GH5S shows vs an a7Smk2, the gap has for practical purposes disappeared at a given ISO level. 
 
 

Because he shoots with a GH5, and sees that noise is nothing to worry about with the GH5!
Thus it is only logical for him to concluded noise from a GH5S also won't be the big issue you are trying to claim it is. 
Yup, as I've said a bunch of times, comparing stills vs stills will only barely tell not even half the story.
 

Really, really disappointing. I kinda wish they'd not released it at all, ha ha, because it's so disappointing. I was really looking forward to a powerful pocket cam that I could carry around with me. I would've had a lot of uses for this camera. 

I feel like they have sat on one of their best and most enjoyable to use cameras for 4 years, refusing to up-date it when Sony was updating their rival (RX100) every year.
And then they finally update it and make it worse! Worse 4K crop!
The GH4 sensor (or very similar) was in the LX100.
Why put a low-end camera sensor in the successor and not the GH5 sensor, which would be in keeping with the previous strategy.
And as others have pointed out, obviously the lack of other significant changes is really off-putting.

And still no Cinelike D
I'm going to wait for the Leica version of it so I can feel as let down but with a slightly more elitist glow.

I have more experience with the Mk I than Mk II (a lot more) but the low light on the Mk I is outstanding and I understand it's much better on the Mk II (due to more in-camera NR). If you expose properly and boost your ISO rather than trying to underexpose and push the footage in post, which is a mess with AVCHD, you'll have a usable image up to 20,000 ISO and a great image up to 4000-5000 ISO. So I would say a massive improvement over a Canon dSLR, but still significantly worse than an A7S for low light (where I would consider an f4 zoom fast enough). The A7S is much cleaner at extreme ISOs but smudges color more so it's a bit subjective which is preferable in medium low light, but I think the A7S is pretty clearly the extreme low light king.
I think you could get by with the 24-105mm, but I never found the 24-105mm great (granted, I was using it on FF) and I find the 18-135mm USM with the rocker zoom a lot better for crop. Constant aperture is less of an advantage if there's no rocker zoom, AF is worse, and it's not parfocal, so I wouldn't dwell on the one-stop advantage on the long end. If you have access to the 18-135mm and to the 24-70mm f4 IS, you're more than good for slow zooms imo.
I had two 17-55mm f2.8 IS lenses, but sold both. They're very useful but a bit old, not optically up to the latest. We put one up against a $50k Angenieux zoom and the Angenieux was much much better, but by f4 it was close enough. I think the newer Canon zooms would compete better. But I still slightly preferred its image to the 24-105mm. The  24-70mm f2.8 is also good zoom range to complement the 70-200mm and adequately fast, but poor for small spaces and terrible for real estate; I used the version one on a C100 and I liked it, but it could have gone wider. For me the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.8, and the 70-200 zoom make a great kit, but you have to be okay with swapping lenses. For documentary use or short form narrative I'd say that's an ideal kit, but for videography or news the 18-135mm Nano USM is far preferable. But imo the 24-105mm feels redundant with, and generally worse than, the superb 18-135mm Nano USM (I just sold one but I loved it while I had it, though I found the zoom rocker really cheap). 
If you have the money and don't need wide angle, the 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II is sick and might be the lens that spends the most time on your camera. Great image. Haven't used one myself but worked with someone who had one and was really impressed with the images and ergonomics. Can't vouch for the AF, though. Lack of IS is not a big deal with it since it doesn't go that long. I remember I rented out my 18-35mm Sigma as part of a kit and the DP refused to use it and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 II IS instead. I think the image is even better with the 24-70mm than with the Sigma, but both of those are outstanding lenses and the trade offs between them will depend on personal preference and brand loyalty. The Canon has better build quality, though, will last much longer imo.
I'd wait on a new lens until you're familiar with the camera. 

- GH5
- Metabones EF<>m43 Speedbooster 0.64 XL
- Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2
- Kowa 2X Anamorphic for Bell&Howell
- cheapy +1 diopter
Original is: 10368 x 3888
Oh, and the black dots on the bee is not what you think, those are the wing roots, not eyes.
It's flying away from me, towards the hibiscus.

The GH5 is more than capable for stills, especially for online publishing. The 6k photo mode is great for social media use. If I was mostly focused on photos I'd probably look at Fuji or Sony, but if you're going to use it for a lot of video work the GH5 is definitely one of the best options out there in my opinion. 

Yeah, after reading and re-reading the advice here and after seeing things head into the M4/3 conversation, it only makes me feel more like moving towards a c100 mkii. Since everyone's shooting situation is different and people hear have thoughtfully commented on mine, it seems the big signs point that way. c100 mkii offers me;
- 60p for my slow mo
- Native lens support and DPAF
- ND's Built in (which helps a guy running around outside at a school, weddings sometimes, etc.)
- No Time Limit recording
- I also believe that current USED price point (around $2500-2800) is going to be my best bet for a Cinima camera. mk3 would be out of my price range if one came out and who knows what the future holds. I actually almost pulled the trigger on one for $2480 2 weeks ago, but ended up being too scared, and now I'm kinda kicking myself, that was a good price I believe. 
Once again, thanks everyone for your thoughts and advice.  I think I am going to wait for a good price and start worrying about my shooting, not my gear. 
Cheers, Chris
 

Yeah first time for me to hear the sensor actually get burned, unfortunately I did encounter Sony A7sII overheat and shut down on me.
 
 

 
This is the combo I use for event, unlimited recording time, full size HDMI out, long battery  (well C100mKII battery is much longer with bigger battery), and never overheat whatsoever.

There's no comparison between the C100 and Canon DSLRs; the IQ is far superior. It provides some of the best 1080p video I've ever seen, which is remarkable considering the codec.
The ergonomics, the pro features, no recording limit, etc. all fit what he's looking for. It's still a great camera and, in my opinion, a good deal. Crazy to see people arguing against it. 

Here is another statistic they dominate after +3900 votes.
And thats on my channel where Sony is getting constant praise.

So once again you where just a liar and a fanboy. At least this time you admit it. I guess thats a step in the right direction.
Btw, Sony is in my top favorite camera video... so another lie from you debunked.
The interesting part is that you can't see that the poll is pointing at people like you. Your last post pretty much prove it. You quote a comment from me, a Sony shooter who constantly praise and recommend them, where I give it a bit of critique and gets totally triggered. Defensive. Fanatic.
Im done with you now. Just wanted to show others that you often lie about people and that I've never made a video where I say "that Sony sucks balls".
Im starting to think someone is putting to much detergent in the cocaine you are smoking.
I wont plat your game, out.

Putting it like that sounds like you're giving it a bit too much credit. It's more like a LX100... with a touchscreen, USB charging and new sensor/processor, which is... a bit lame if you ask me. I'm disappointed they didn't do more with it. That's not what 4 years of learning and listening should look like. Guess they're pulling a Canon here playing a segmentation game like that...

Agreed with the above. With +4 hours of battery life, unlimited record time, dual SD slots, ND filters, internal stereo shotgun mic (and XLRs if needed), Dual Pixel AF, a 4K downscaled to 1080p sensor, uncompressed 4:2:2 recording via HDMI, top handle and pivotable side grip ergonomics allowing steady shots without IBIS, Super35 sensor from the C300, peaking/zebras/waveform assist.. and it's current price tag, the camera still easily surpasses most current cameras in quite few departments..

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.
He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).
The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 
Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.
He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).
The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 
Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

Not just folks who still use the C100 as their main camera, but there are lots of people I know with say a FS700/C300mk2/UMP/REDs/etc who still bring out their C100 on a semi regular basis for their cheaper/smaller jobs such as the OP mostly does.