Framed_By_Dan

I only use Log for situations which are relatively consistent throughout the whole shoot. It's not a good profile for run and gun filming. My commercial work I can keep pretty consistent so it can be shot in Log, my other work is weddings, I ideally need access to the full ISO range on a camera, I need to work indoors and outdoors, variable colour temperatures and lighting conditions. My wedding clients won't know or won't care if I shot Log or not. I use a tweaked Natural profile on my Lumix cameras, using 10-bit where possible which makes a huge difference in post if my WB is off. The files are still thick enough to push and pull. Yes I might only have 9 or 10 stops of DR to play with as opposed to around 12 if I shot in Log but at least it's much less stressful to work with on the day and easier to manage in post. I have a PowerGrade with my signature look ready to go in Davinci which I slap on and Adjustment layer then make minor final tweaks to clips where necessary.

The rumours seem promising. Still no word on IBIS though. I owned an OG Fp briefly as I fancied experimenting with Raw video, but ultimately didn't have the patience. It was quirky, small and light but the lack of IBIS and a tilting screen frustrated me. It'll be interesting to see what Sigma do. If it uses the S1 II sensor, I certainly hope Sigma's processing for any compressed codecs will be better and more organic looking than Panasonic's current offering.

I've always tried to figure out what the crop was in 4K. Always assumed it might have been 2.3x, similar to the GH4 but it definitely feels a bit more than that.

Following this! I have the GX9 and have often wondered about trying come C Mount S16 lenses on it. After all, some should cover the 2.2/2.3x crop in 4K. I'm not going to go as deep as the OP here but if I can get a decent look with FilmConvert I'd be happy.

I'm considering changing my GH5 to a G9II after testing the S1II and finding that the image is still nasty and digital looking. I've not had extensive testing yet as an A camera, I can potentially get a loaner for a weekend but just out of curiosity, how are you all finding the battery life and overheating (if any) for long takes in C4K?

This is true. I don't even use Log for the bulk of my work. Only when I know it's worth it/have a somewhat controlled environment. This is what makes the S1II/S1IIE even more frustrating to me with it's aggressive digital sharpening. The "baked in" profiles just look plain ugly.

The file sizes are still too large for my work. I shoot long form, or at least a full day's worth of footage and can easily come home with 400-500gb of footage as its stands. Prores 422 would double it.

It definitely seems like manufacturers are pushing Raw like it's the best thing since sliced bread. The average buyer of the prosumer hybrid mirrorless cameras does not need Raw. I noted some chat above about bandwidth vs processing power. Seems this is also the case with the Lumix S1II/S1IE. Seems like Lumix is beginning to favour Raw over H.264 and H.265 recording, which is very disappointing. I tested one for a weekend and was let down by the horrendous digital sharpening and aggressive noise reduction in the compressed codecs, even when it's turned all way way down, it's not "off". Many claim the extra sharpening is to help the AF, but the AF still works in Raw - the only recording format that actually looks organic and natural. So it's evidently a processing problem. I was really excited by the prospect of the S1II but I'm afraid it's completely unusable for my needs. I don't want or need Raw, I'd just like a nice, natural looking H.265 image please.

I'd like to know too, especially about the S1II and using the Rec709 profiles (Natural specifically). Everyone who's reviewed the S1II has done so using V-Log or Raw. I've read that it's not quite as aggressively digitally sharp as the S5ii/S5iiX but still showing some heavy NR and smoothing of fine details. I might have to get a loan of one for myself to see whats what.

I'd honestly love a 17-40mm f1.8 in L mount for sake of the crop in 4K50 on the S1. As long as it's not a behemoth.

15mm f1.7. The Sigma is much bigger and heavier which of course can be good for stability however it suffers badly with focus breathing apparently. Plenty of reviews out there comparing the two.

Underrated, but the same type of tripod plate on each camera, with each tripod head and any type of "grip" matched with the appropriate head or clip. For instance, whilst I have a Manfrotto 501 style fluid head, I have adapted it to accept 200PL plates. Same with my gimbal. It means I can go from tripod to gimbal to handheld without faffing with plates and having to rebalance.

I definitely probably have too many cameras...if that's such a thing? 😇 For work it's the following: Lumix GH5 Lumix GH5 II (hybrid photo & video work) Lumix GH5S Lumix S1 (hybrid photo & video work) Lumix S5IIX (hybrid photo & video work) Lumix GH4 (pretty much retired and up for sale) Personal/EDC/Fun Digital: Lumix GX9 (photo & video) Lumix GH1 (the very camera which won me best image quality in a EOSHD Forum challenge) Fujifilm X-Pro 1 (photo only) Film: Canon AE-1 Program Canon EF-M (manual focus EF mount SLR - I pair with adapted Leica R glass which I often also use for video) Konica Genbakantonku 28 HG Of course there's a couple of action cams in for good measure - GoPro Hero 4 and DJI Action 2. Finally the flying camera - DJI Mini 3 Pro

10 Bit is always going to be better than 8 Bit when correcting Log. That said it is dependent on codec and bit rate too. Ive always felt a Lumix 8 Bit file, regardless whether it's H.264 or H.265 is so much thicker and easier to work with than any Sony A7 whatever rubbish. Another factor is your software of choice. Premiere Pro is not a colour grading software, Lumetri sucks. Davinci on the other hand is so much kinder to weak codecs, much less banding and colour artefacts when you try to stretch things like correcting white balance and tint. Clearly better algorithms that are much more forgiving.

Yes I'm on the latest firmware. I was very keen to see what the 6K/5.9K looked like...glorious! Anyway, yes I think bringing the highlights down might be my own undoing, thinking it's "better" in a way when it's probably not. Just knocked it back a touch to -1 to see if that helps. Boosted saturation back a touch too, I find when underexposing the colour tends to disappear so anything I can do to negate that helps. I do like Cine V, colours are nice especially skin tones, but still just a touch too punchy for my liking when I am grading on top later. I use a slightly tweaked Cine V for quick turnaround jobs where no grading is required.