GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

NorBro said:
90s GUI would be much more simpler.

It's coming, man...put the 135mm GM purchase on hold...all weddings canceled... :confused:

I don't know what that last part is about and lurkers and a debate show, but sounds like we'll need to find a streaming service ASAP.
Click to expand...

You said only 4 people use the site.

Don't tease me about that 135. I'm torn
 
Thomas Smet said:
I.
I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to this. I'm also one of this that thinks a lens should be used in its sweet spot which is typically around f5.6. No matter how great a lens is wide open they tend to be better stopped down a bit. They become more consistent across the frame and have less optical artifacts.

I also agree with Norbro about diffusion filters. They can be a bit too much. There are different levels for a reason and sometimes too strong or too weak of filtering is used. I have a very successful friend who swears by a diffusion filter. Then I know others equally successful that find them to be the work of the Devil. To each their own again I guess.
Click to expand...

I feel like it's usually preferable to choose an aperture based on the DOF you want. But of course different people have different aesthetic sensibilities and might be more interested in maximal detail and flawless optical performance than i am. Lenses are getting so good these days wide open that it's not cringeworthy anymore, but nevertheless everything seems to clean up a stop or 2 or 3 closed down.

I feel like most of the high-end stuff we watch uses filtration. But we don't necessarily notice filtration unless it's overdone in which case it makes a very unfavorable impression, sullying the reputation of filters in general.

Here's a wide shot and CU from one of the last shoots I definitely remember using Black Frost on, way back in 2014. I'm not sure what the strengths were.

Screenshot_20211230-110801_Vimeo.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: Screenshot_20211230-110801_Vimeo.jpg Views: 0 Size: 48.3 KB ID: 5683352
Screenshot_20211230-110817_Vimeo.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: Screenshot_20211230-110817_Vimeo.jpg Views: 0 Size: 32.3 KB ID: 5683353

It probably looks softer than it is because of the resolution of images on dvxuser. But the question is if it obviously looks filtered. I remember Brawley saying he used Black Frost on the Great. Queen's Gambit used heavy Black Satin. Papert says he uses Black Diffusion FX or Glimmerglass unless he wants a sharp look.

Most of the time, I don't bother to filter. Especially since it's a more conservative choice, leaving more flexibility in the edit. But I'm reconsidering for the sake of stylizing things, even if it's subtle. Or certainly for prettying people up.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Maybe because I have used m43 since the GH1 but I find f2.8 to be very impressive on FF cameras so far. At least on the R6 it is. Thats essentially f1.4 DOF I had on m43 and I can't imagine needing more than that.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends. I can't really get selective focus of my subject in a wide shot on FF 24mm f/1.4. I don't necessarily need it, but if I want it I can't have it. I would probably need large format (like 8x10") to get that.

From a recent wedding video here are 2 shots on a 50mm at f/1.2. This one I'm happy with, background looks like a painting, I don't think I need any less DOF than this:

Screenshot_20211230-112718_Vimeo.jpg

But on this one I feel like the subjects are barely isolated from the crowd, at least when viewed on a phone. Just because of the distance to them from camera and how close they are to the people behind them. And it's fine, it doesn't kill me because everyone in the background is involved in the action. But when you get that phone-looker or stank face in a situation like this, blurring them out takes the shot from party pooper to romantic bliss. Or if I really wanted to snap the attention to the groom.

Screenshot_20211230-112828_Vimeo.jpg
 
ahalpert said:
Don't tease me about that 135. I'm torn
Click to expand...

A potential client who was pointed in your direction after your latest endeavor over in Bronxville recently reached out and asked if you could film their engagement party with only the G Master 135mm.

You kindly shared you only had the G Master 50mm.

They replied, “Okay, thank you for your time.”

After hanging up and finishing your 2nd cup of coffee, this one sweeter than the last, you navigated to the 135’s B&H page you’ve had bookmarked since late August, saying to yourself, “One day, Debra, one day.”

Your Tamrons and Sigmas knew their place, but they also wanted you to know that you aren’t the only one disappointed.
 
DLD said:
Anyone seen the last iPhone 13 Pro commercial?
Click to expand...

If it's this one, I saw it and I immediately noticed the focus mess up a little during the rack.

So then I waited to see it online to confirm.

Good on Apple for leaving it...especially if it was noticed in post and the decision was to show a genuine but flawed result. Still, many eyes wouldn't notice that.

Take a look at the background and look closely during the shift.

What's interesting is it appears to hunt. I was under the impression it was a direct shift from two points when doing it in post. Not sure what they did here.

 
ahalpert said:
I think it really depends. I can't really get selective focus of my subject in a wide shot on FF 24mm f/1.4. I don't necessarily need it, but if I want it I can't have it. I would probably need large format (like 8x10") to get that.

From a recent wedding video here are 2 shots on a 50mm at f/1.2. This one I'm happy with, background looks like a painting, I don't think I need any less DOF than this:



But on this one I feel like the subjects are barely isolated from the crowd, at least when viewed on a phone. Just because of the distance to them from camera and how close they are to the people behind them. And it's fine, it doesn't kill me because everyone in the background is involved in the action. But when you get that phone-looker or stank face in a situation like this, blurring them out takes the shot from party pooper to romantic bliss. Or if I really wanted to snap the attention to the groom.

Click to expand...

24mm on FF is tough as is 12mm on m43. Really hard to get good DOF on that wide of a lens. I prefer to not use lenses that wide if I don't have to and only use them when space is super tight. Even on m43 my main lens was 25mm f1.4 which I felt was just the right amount of control of DOF without making manual focus super insane. I could see it being a bit tough for a wedding reception however. I once grabbed some shots at a friends wedding and the 25mm was a bit too tight and ended up using the 14-140mm at 14mm which was horrible for the lighting but the focal length was much better. Fortunately I had a LED camera light so the 14mm was usable for them.

I kind of like your shot on the dance floor. The point of getting a crowd of dancers like that is to see the dancers and family having fun together. If you want to isolate the bride and groom more get closer, zoom in or swap to a tighter lens. Getting a wider shot like that of a large group and wanting some dramatic DOF may be a bit complex to achieve.
 
CES is officially starting Wednesday, the 5th and ending Saturday, the 8th. Not sure if Panasonic will exhibit there or just go online. Sony's got a streaming event tomorrow.
 
My feeling is that if anything was coming, Nokishi*ta from Japan would have already tweeted about it like he always does within a week of a release.

Could be that he simply doesn't know but he tweets about everything.
 
NorBro said:
A potential client who was pointed in your direction after your latest endeavor over in Bronxville recently reached out and asked if you could film their engagement party with only the G Master 135mm.
Click to expand...

For my 1,000th wedding, I will film only with a 135 just to make things interesting

the 135 GM is basically a superb lens. I just think zooming around from 70-180 is super useful (because zooming with your feet on a telephoto requires moving greater distances than the equivalent frame changes on a wider lens). And the 135 is only 1.3 stops faster.

Also, an 85 1.2 will perform similarly to a 135 1.8 when you do a 1.5x crop.

But I definitely require 2 or 3 fast telephotos simultaneously during wedding toasts. Right now I'm 85 1.4 on toaster, 50 1.2 on couple (but should be 85). Ideally 85 1.2 on toaster, 85 1.4 on couple, 135 1.8 on crowd reactions

Samyang is coming out with a 135 1.8. Maybe if its lightweight and under $800 and has terrific AF and optics I'll cheap out and get that one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top