thebrothersthre3

The 120p looks awesome. Is it 10bit?

I don't really mind the crop, its not that big of a deal. I can always use a speedbooster to make it up.

Hmm global shutter will probably mean subpar dynamic range and low light.

No rolling shutter would be great for weddings though, no half screen flashes from the rolling shutter.

The lens turbo is awesome! 

I definitely wouldn't buy fuji glass for manual focus. Auto focus lenses are almost always crap for manual. I use Minolta vintage glass for manual focus 50mm 1.4 , 35 1.8, 24 2.8, and 128 2.8. 

I am getting the Fuji for auto focus and stills. Even if it wasn't a still camera I'd still buy it for auto focus. I really prefer APSC, but if it weren't for auto focus I'd probably go with BM. 

You can punch in to focus while recording!!!! WOOOW!

7 hours ago, Márcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

The camera have sensors to record the camera movement, hence the software knows the direction and the intensity of each camera movement.
Did not looked extensively, but I guess that the footage does not comes stabilized straight out of camera, guess that you have to stabilize it in a GoPro software - than you don't need a lot of processing power on camera, it only records the footage and sensors data to feed the software. But I could be wrong.

oh its done in post not in camera? Interesting. It certainly does look very nice. Almost tempted to buy one, but that tiny sensor wide lens look is kind of off putting for the majority of things.

6 hours ago, Brian Williams said:

AF and bigger sensor, if either thing matters to you. Otherwise its not purely for video, but better if you need both a stills & video camera.

Yeah definitely if you need stills. But yeah auto focus and S35 sensor. The three reasons I am getting it over the black magic.
 

Finally a confirmation that the high ISO performance beats the XT2. Definitely more detail, less mush.

For me to get it I'd want to see 4k 60p 10bit or at least 422 8bit and 4k 120fps. Would make a killer slow motion camera being as good as it will be in low light. 

Otherwise I'll stick to the XT3. 

15 hours ago, Dan Sherman said:

That's purely perception!

If you are using  a screen that follows the rec 709 spec you are not going to see more than 5 stops. Technically you have about another stop in the over exposed highlights and underexposed shadows, but the display wont show them. 

The only way you are getting more than 5 stops is if you are using a custom gamma, like REDGamma, but then again your display has to know what to do with it.
 

 

 

I think it should give you more room in grading though to decide where those stops are going.

That if its all just software stabilization it probably takes up a lot of processing power. When you have a small sensor it gives you more room for processing power. Still impressive that they fit it in such a small body.

That said if they really wanted to be innovative they should be giving us 4k 120fps. Such a small sensor should be capable.

Smaller sensors are always easier to stabilize. I wouldn't mind a larger camera to stabilize an M43 sensor though its a lot larger then a Go pro one. 

I've pretty much abandoned IBIS for now though. Sticking to my gimbal which I find works great for my uses. I get why a vlogger or traveler would want something like a Hero7 though. 

1 hour ago, Dan Sherman said:

 

I find that hard to believe considering rec 709 only has 5 stops of dynamic range. You might have started with more, but you're not going to end up with more.

 

 

 

Try it and tell me what you think compared to vlog. 

Anyone know if this camera will support focus control on the Ronin S?

To really test dynamic range thoroughly wouldn't you also need to see how much info you can pull from the shadows?

You might want to add HLG to the test. There is a claim out there that you'll get 1-2 more stops of dynamic range then in vlog.

This is the method I've heard gets one more dynamic range in HLG.

"So in FCPX for instance you just make all your libraries 2020 and bring in all your footage and pull your HLG highlights down to 50IRE and export to 709. You don’t need an HDR monitor or anything else. Your 709 output will have the 14.6 stops of DR if you remap it this way. "
from

Really considering this for my IBIS camera. How much better is the IBIS compared to a GX85 G85, gh5?

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

Color reproduction ranking. 

This should ruffle some feathers. ?

Thats pretty cool. Real life isn't always very appeasing haha.

I am cool with Sony having accurate colors. They should just include a picture profile that has a very pleasing forgiving look.

18 minutes ago, tonysss said:

 

A quick test dynamic range, now it's getting darker, tomorrow morning I'll try again, the test is performed so that it has been exposed to highlights zebra 95% (BM Assist Monitor), all cameras - internal record. 1080p25 + Panasonic 12-35f2.8 

test: https://vimeo.com/user9259559/review/290741717/c75810bee5

GX80 - it's not as good as I thought ?

BEST - GH5/BMPCC, second place GH4 .......................................and GX80,

 

can be downloaded from VIMEO (original ProRes422) , BMPCC in RAW test tomorrow.

 

 

Link doesn't work bro

Pretty pointless trying to judge noise levels off vimeo or youtube. The Moonlight short looks great, though I don't think anything with such high megapixels will be able to compete much with the A7S.

Yeah man Paul Leeming just got back to me and said that the GH5 is ahead in every profile including CineD. That's me taking his word for it so that may not be worth much to you. He did extensive testing with the GH4 back in the day though so I trust him. 

11 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I just want to clarify, I don't doubt the 10-bit 4:2:2 V-log in the GH5 has higher DR than anything the GH4 can produce. I was just comparing Cine-D.

Yeah I know, I really don't think CineD has more dynamic range on the GH4, could be wrong. Especially not as dramatic as in that video(which is why I think its extended ISO, because dynamic range is pretty dramatically worse with it). 

15 minutes ago, mercer said:

Being a cabinet maker by trade, I can tell you first hand that that statement is not entirely true. A craftsman will make any tool work. Sure better tools are always helpful, but a master at his craft will improvise and make any tool work. 

I often reference Kendy Ty and what he did with a t2i and the OG Sigma 30mm lens. It was truly astonishing work and holds up today. I actually prefer the look of his t2i films over his a6300 films. Technically, the a6300 image is better but there is something missing.

I often muse about getting a second camera and I instantaneously gravitate toward a GH5 or a Fuji or even a C100 or FS5 because they give me something I don’t have with my 5D3, but deep down, I really just want one of the cheapest cameras I can find. Something that will require me to massage the image. In the end, that improvisation will make me a better craftsman... I think.

A year or so ago, myself, @PannySVHS and @mat33 discussed a short film challenge involving 8bit 1080p cameras. As most challenges usually die, so did this, but I often think about going back to the idea of challenging myself with an entry level camera. The D3400 has a Flat Profile. The EOS-M has the ML bitrate hack, obviously the GH1/GH2 hacks. The E-M5ii has some of the best IBIS around with a nice Flat Profile and an all-i codec. Or maybe a GX85 hacked by @BTM_Pix for CineLikeD used in conjunction with @Sage ‘s brilliant emotive color could be equally appealing. 

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment by the OP and as my end of summer GAS calls out to me, maybe I’ll once again explore one of these options instead of dropping thousands of dollars on a new system I don’t really need.

The EOS-M is pretty cool but the ISO performance is pretty terrible. 

I own a GX85, its a pretty darn good camera for the price, especially used. Not as good as the GH5 in low light or dynamic range, but its nice. IBIS is awesome too. 

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I would agree. The only problem is that it wasn't exactly noobs doing it. All settings where equal. And finally, all other tests online show the same thing. So calling it a "fail" isn't something I can do, until someone proves them wrong. Which I sincerely hope someone would. There are tons of GH4 vs GH5 comparisons out there made after the GH5 launch. All show a drop of DR in Cine-D for the GH5. But like I said, that's a couple of firmwares ago and things might be different today.

Panasonic have great cameras, I've been shooting on them for what feels like ages now. Its the most used camera brand on my channel followed closely by Sony (Ive owned more Sony cameras than any other brand but Panasonic is the longest lasting and most used for me). The DR in the GH4 generation was bad but I can live with it. I just wouldn't want it to get even worse.

I do think they were using identical settings but I don't think the GH4 had the same lose of dynamic range with extended ISO. This wasn't a known issue right away so I wouldn't blame it on the guys doing the video. Who else do you know that has found dynamic range in cineD to be better on the GH4? 

I'll run it by Paul Leeming as I know he's done a lot of thorough testing on both cameras. 

Its the Fuji XT3 for me. It gives me decent low light (usable 6400), APSC sensor, fast auto focus, good color without grading, 10 bit, and 4k 60p.

Its only missing IBIS, but I have my gimbal which is more useful anyways. People always say to focus on craft not camera, and I do. The Fuji simply is the first camera that really fills my needs. GH5 had 10 bit, Fuji and Canon had great color, Sony had amazing auto focus. Fuji just gives me all my needs in one. I am sure new cameras coming out will be tempting, but I just don't really need anything else.

17 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Im not trusting some dude, I'm looking at actual images. Lab tests are fun but doesn't tell you about real performance.

btw, Thats for stills. Its probably more like 10. Maybe 12 in V-log with a bit of luck and if the circumstances are perfect.

For 13 you are in Blackmagic territory. Nikon can do it. The old Sony A7s cant, but the newer once might.

Thanks, Didn't notice what isos where uses. Will recheck. Vlog would be cool but the G9 doesn't have it. Im only looking at GH5 vs GH4 tests because they are way easier to find than G85 vs G9 (same sensors)

EDIT: Where did you read about the ISOs used, cant find any info in the description or video?

I am not 100% sure. I think its just me guessing. I remember when the video came out though (around when the GH5 was first released). I remember seeing another video where a guy was puzzled at the lack of Dynamic range and sure enough he was using 100 iso (which is extended iso that decreases dynamic range).

I know Paul Leeming found the GH5 to have the same dynamic range in cineD.

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

According to this test the GH5 looks like it has worse dynamic range than the GH4 in Cine D. It makes sense given the larger pixels.

Does anyone know of any other tests on the subject or have the cameras and feel like uploading some files?

I've been shooting all weekend with the G85 to determine if I should get the G9, the X-H1 or something else. I could go G9 but getting even lower than the already quite terrible DR isn't very exciting.

(I have considered the GH5 wich is way cheaper than the other two, but I need a top LCD. Otherwise I would have just stuck to the G85.)

 

Brother the dude in that test was using extended ISO. This decreases dynamic range. They are the same in CineD otherwise. Vlog and HLG you get at least a stop more. The XH1 has pretty solid dynamic range in Flog and Eterna. 

Could be an 8k sensor with a 6.5k readout or something. Very interesting news.