zlfan

even e-m1x 4k video seems very good.

it is interesting to see how good om1/om1 mkii dci 4k is. i am attracted to the ibis mostly. just kind of uncertain of their video quality.

gh2 can do unlimited video recording due to the hack. it was a big thing at the time. gh3 although has a little bit better 1080p than hacked gh2 1080p (actually very little), but limited to 30 min. gh5 is a refinement of gh4, worthy of mentioning. gh7 is really mature. I think hacked gh2 still is the most famous, iconic one. hack is the key here.

maybe arriraw is not as efficient as r3d, like rendering speed, nle support? Alexa already has prores4444, pretty good actually.

thanks for the info. I don't know this. what are the compression ratios on these cameras?

broadcast industry is a double edge for alexa. uncontrolled lighting requires high dr, which is the forte of the alexa. but broadcast industry on the other hand produces one time piece. nobody watches news over and over again. for news reporting, hcb's idea of decisive moment is the key. even if a phone catches a critical scene, can make a huge viral news globally. alexas, on the other hand, are too expensive, too big, not essential for news. maybe for arena type shooting like rodeo events, alexa is suitable. but even in this case, 2/3 box lenses with 2/3 cameras have distinct advantage over alexa. i think in the broadcase industry, 2/3 cameras still rule, especially when coupled with box lenses, for non moving jobs. for quick turn around jobs, 2/3 cams with all auto superzoom lenses have the best ergonomics. i have a varicam 27h (another 27h and panavision f900 for parts), so i know that 2/3 cams have the best ergonomics than anything else in the world for shoulder mount quick turn around. in summary, alexa has a not so bright future.

the gap between something like z6 iii vs alexa family is getting narrower and narrower. at certain point, alexa will be truly niche product like leica s system.

codec means compression decompression. anything is compressed is codec, no matter compressed raw. only ml raw can have true lossless codec due to the lj92 engine found in ml cameras.

probably I will stick to my epic-x mysterium-x. with rail based battery, I have a contacting point against my chest. I have the grip for the right hand, and left hand hold the bottom. I use smallhd dp6 lcd for viewing. I use Leica r 19mm f2.8. looks stable enough. 5k 60p 5:1. good enough to compare to these new mirrorless. I probably will think to have s5 3 for its ibis.

stabilization seems not good enough, comparing to s5 2x.

z6 iii seems very promising, due to: 1. z mount shortest ff flange distance 2. buffer size, 14 bit raw 20 fps for 1000 frames (30 fps for ? frames, 60 fps?) 3. raw video 4. ibis at 8 cipa 5. 4k raw mode may be s35 for all s35 lenses

when you do stitching with gfx or other digital cams, the sensor, especially the stitched gfx 100 mp sensors out resolve the vintage lf lenses by many miles, only the latest rodenstock lf lenses have enough resolution to match. but they are expensive.

m43 or 43 is a cool format actually. ff camera bodies can be very small now, but the lenses are not so easy to scale down. m43 lenses are really cute. also, in the photo world, m43 especially Olympus cameras and lenses are used for birding or other wild life niches, which makes sense very much. 43 lenses are not so smaller than the ff or apsc lenses, but their iqs are great, especially Olympus shg lenses, very very beautiful iq.

I guess eventually you may accumulate several m43 bodies, gh7, chunky yet robust pro body, something like em10 v, small body with interchangeable lens mount, even smaller m43 body with integrated f1.4 prime lens, like Sony rx1. probably each format will have these several layers.

lf twich is not available to the p/s lenses. also p/s lenses can only go to +-8mm, ,y mire ef to m43 p/s adapter can go to +-11mm, lf technical cameras can go much greater ranges. you talked about film look on lf mf, you are right in the photo world, a lot of choice. but Hollywood movies almost exclusively use Kodak vision 50d 250d, 200t 500t. so film look on movies is very defined. r1mx etc are tuned for this film look. I have looked adapting DSLR or mirrorless on lf before. the main thing is you have to have the latest rodenstock lenses, which is about $5000 for one. kind of defeating the purpose using lf with its ample vintage lenses.

about lf or mf look, my personal experience on some historical photos by lf 8x10 technical cameras are much more elegant than those taken by modern phone or crop sensor cameras, on the same scene, buildings, streets, landscape. at first, I did not know why those historical photos are so grandiose, now I think large format contributes to it, also the camera movements help.

thanks for the long reply. all true. regards,

handhold 100 mm on m43 is actually pretty good. I have several 50 mm standard primes. if they are stable enough for video use, it will great. em5 og is tripod like at 25mm, monopod like at 50mm, 100 mm is not stable enough for video work.

seems to me currently the best choice is s 5 2 x. I will follow up with s 5 3. if it incorporates gh 7's features, I will pull the trigger. I have a collection of mf lenses with different brands, formats, and mounts. I think l mount is ok for almost all of them. I hope s 5 3 has ibis similar to gh7 om1 ii.

I tried steadicam. I have a steadicam merlin. the problem is the difficulty to balance. also, I can not do camera angles I like. but if only for flow movements like walking or running, the footage is very pro like.

you are totally right, according to my research on ibis.

I have em5 og, 4 stop ibis

my purpose is to adapt my ff manual focus lenses on this camera for handheld shooting. I know gh7, om1 mkii are good for ibis. but they are maybe only good <100mm. or can they stabilize lenses of 200 mm well?

I get it now. even though people are experienced, they look for different things they like or they emphasize. for example, some one may emphasizes motion cadence of 24p much more than the blurred or jumpy panning, he then focuses on 24p even using thin codec cams. probably he avoids the panning so that to cover the weakness of the cams. I emphasize on clearness of the panning, and I like to do panning, so I use external recorder for thick codecs, and prefer 30 p or 60p, to avoid the bumpy panning. another example, some one emphasizes 3d looking. actually Zeiss c/y 50 mm f1.7 is a very 3d looking affordable lens. sensor size does not contribute much to the 3d looking. so he assumes that there is no mf lf look. I emphasize on the whole image, like tonality, gradation, etc, so I can see the difference. it is good to understand others' perspectives, as sometimes there is no reason to argue at all. but, hey, let's make up something so we can argue and talk. it is fun to debate anyways. lol.

thanks for the info. good to know.