Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 727
Quote:
should one's aim be to keep the ISO low as possible as priority - so 160 in the case of the G6? Or does it make no difference whatsoever to go up to say iso 400?

Short answer: yes, keep the ISO as low as possible.

Longer answer:

There is always some difference. And the higher up on the ISO scale you go, the more difference there is for the same range. i.e. there's more a difference between ISO400 and ISO1000 (1 and 1/3 stop) than there is between ISO160 and ISO400 (also 1 and 1/3 stop) because ISO400-1000 is higher up on the scale. This is why Gordon always includes high ISO tests in his reviews (granted, for stills/photos, but you can extrapolate for video). e.g. Gordon's G6 tests are here.

Also keep in mind that the higher the ISO, the lower the dynamic range. And similar to the above, the higher up on the ISO scale, the bigger the dropoff in dynamic range.

Having said that, since the G6 uses the same sensor as my GH2, I would probably be comfortable using up to ISO800. But that's just me. YMMV. Only way to be sure is to do your own tests with subjects you normally shoot under conditions you would normally shoot them with a post workflow that you would you would normally use.

Quote:
Other than the issue of wanting a shallower depth of field, is there anything advantageous in keeping the aperture wider open rather than stopping down?

Nope. Or at least, there shouldn't be any other advantage because as I've repeatedly stressed throughout this thread, any half decent video production will have a light rig. Congrats again, you're starting to think like a professional DP who only uses aperture to control DoF and nothing else!

Quote:
Just trying to think what the optimal balance is that one should aim for.

To recap the process I outlined a few posts back (with a few additions):

1) pick your lens focal length based on the perspective you want. (i.e. how much of the background you want to see.)
2) pick the distance between the subject and the camera based on the framing you want. (bust, torso, head-to-toe, etc.)
3) pick your aperture based on how much DoF you want. (i.e. how much you need/want to be in focus.)

{4) pick your shutter speed based on how much motion blur you want. Although, for video, you generally want to keep it at twice your frame rate, as you mentioned previously.}

5) set your exposure with ISO. And if you cannot achieve proper exposure with ISO alone, add lights or ND filters.

Quote:
It also might help in deciding if you really need to spend more on a fast lens.

As we established above, the only reason for a fast lens is if you want to isolate your subject via thinner DoF (bokeh). And be aware that thinner DoF also makes maintaining accurate focus more difficult.*

Quote:
When I get more familiar with the focal ranges I regularly use (hopefully there will be more regular ones!), I can look at a prime.

This is a good idea, BUT...

Quote:
Constant aperture is good for video (zooming in and out while recording)

...This is not, IMO.

1) most zoom lenses are not "parfocal". i.e. they do not maintain focus as they are zoomed.
2) most hybrid photo/video lenses are not (designed to be) smoothly and steadily zoomed.
3) most hybrid photo/video lenses (even constant aperture lenses) are not designed to maintain aperture/exposure while being zoomed.**
4) most professional productions rarely, if ever, zoom during a shot. (Corollary: frequent zooms during shots give a video a very amateur feel.)***

While there are a few m4/3 "power zoom" lenses, and there is one m4/3 parfocal constant aperture video lens (the 35-100m f2.8 lens you mentioned****), by the nature of including additional functionality, these lenses are (very) expensive. Which is why I've said before (more than once) that, if someone needs to zoom during a shot, they are almost always better off with a dedicated video camera.

And I'd be willing to bet that it's not humanly possible to manually maintain a constant aperture on that Canon FD lens you mentioned while it's being smoothly and steadily zoomed.

But again, that doesn't mean I think a zoom lens (to find which focal lengths you prefer) is a bad idea. I just wouldn't recommend using it to zoom during a shot.

Mark

*Which is why I originally stated, "the only people who are usually better off shooting video on a large sensor, interchangeable lens, hybrid photo/video camera are folks on a scripted narrative feature (who have the time to setup, block, light, do multiple takes, etc.)" i.e. people who have the time to plan all of this out ahead of time and who also have the time to reshoot if something (e.g. focus) goes wrong during a take. Pretty much everyone else would be better off with a dedicated video camera, IMO.

**note that most photo cameras -- and thus hybrid photo/video cameras -- are only designed to adjust exposure to the nearest 1/3 stop. So there's bound to be some rounding going on, and this rounding will result in "steps"/"exposure flicker" when zooming during a video. e.g. at 80mm a 20mm pupil diameter will give an exact aperture value of f4 (i.e. 80 / 20 = 4 ). But zooming in or out by just 1mm probably won't result in any change in the pupil diameter. (Since 79 / 20 and 81 / 20 will be rounded off to f4) There probably won't be a change in pupil diameter until you get to around 74mm and 85mm. (74 / 19 and 85 / 21 will probably be rounded to f4 or looking at it the other way: 74 / 20 and 85 / 20 will be rounded to f3.5 and f4.5 respectively.) So what happens as you zoom in from 74mm to 85mm is that the image will gradually get darker, then when you hit 85mm, the aperture will open up and the image will suddenly get brighter. Then the pattern will repeat as you zoom in further. This slowly darker, then suddenly brighter pattern -- or slowly brighter, then suddenly darker if you're zooming out -- is where the name "exposure flicker" comes from.

***if you're interested, you could watch a few BBC docus and count how many shots (out of hundreds? thousands?) actually have a zoom in them. (And don't confuse a "rack focus" with a zoom.) I'd wager less than five, probably more like one or two, if that many.

****note that: a) I don't know of any lens that is all three (parfocal, continuously adjusted constant video aperture, and "power zoom") and b) although the 35-100mm is continuously adjusted constant video aperture when used with a GH3, I have some doubt that it will perform that same way with a G6 (because my hunch is that the camera firmware needs to support this behavior, and I would doubt that the G6's firmware does).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
Thank you for that useful information.

As a start I should ask if you can recommend a light that would be good for say interviews/one person speaking? Hoping that there is something relatively cheap, at least to start me off. As you mentioned, this would allow me to reduce shallow DoF if I want more in focus and also use less bright lenses (which are cheaper so the light seems to be a money saver).

"3) pick your aperture based on how much DoF you want. (i.e. how much you need/want to be in focus.)" - This is so important as before I thought I would pick aperture depending on light level in the room (and DoF would be a consequence) but I now see it the other way round that I need to be more in control of the light first and be in a position to select aperture based on the DoF I want.

As for ISO, it's good that you can go up to 800. I'll have a play around with mine but will still hope to have a setup that allows it stay as low as possible (before I was thinking I must try to achieve ISO 160). Again, If i'm stuck without sufficient lighting, would want to know if i can get away with f3.5.

Very interesting what you mention about constant aperture not being totally constant as it has to adjust. Clever that the Panasonic f2.8 zoom does not have to do this on a GH2. Yes, I had no such issues with light changing on my video camera when zooming. I see what you mean about too much zooming being amateurish. I had a play around with focus racking and it does not seem too difficult to do (I'd probably need more practice to use it quickly when live). I've also seen panning/moving across a in straight line is more common with dslr/m. Only time I would want to zoom is if videoing a conference and wanting to zoom out to show the rest of the panel at times (if there is a panel of speakers) and on audience. The better option here probably would be to use two cameras and switch between them instead. My Sony camcorder will still have use it seems! (instead of getting another G6 or whatever).

Thanks for explaining parfocal (I actually did not know what it was till you explained it!...mind my ignorance). I have since read that some people have manually calibrated the Canon FD 35-105mm to make it parfocal - something I dare not try though.

because some people really like the quality and look of the FD lenses, some are adding speedboosters which changes the focal lenses and makes them brighter. Some are quite expensive ($400 for a Metabones one) but cheaper alternatives are out there which seem to be quite good ($120 for Mitakon Lens Turbo and the RJ Lens Turbo). What do you think of this idea?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 727
Quote:
if you can recommend a light that would be good for say interviews/one person speaking?

First off, you want at least two (key and fill), preferably three (key, fill and rim), and optimally four (key, fill, rim, and background) lights, not just one.

That said, I would recommend you decide what features you want/need (brightness, portability, AC and/or battery powered, adjustable color temp, etc.), what you budget is, and then have a look around the following sites:

http://www.ephotoinc.com/led-video-lights.html (they have a 3 light kit for $679 but you will have to provide your own diffusers*)

http://www.fvlighting.com/store/lighting.html (their 3 light kit is $1,050 and comes with diffusers but not stands)

http://rosco.com/FTVP/index.cfm (their "LitePad Digital Shooters Kit" comes with 5 panels and one loop/ring and everything else you'd probably need in a convenient travel case for ~$2,300.)

Of course, you can also buy piecemeal at any/all of the above sites (and elsewhere), if you want.

Quote:
Only time I would want to zoom is if videoing a conference and wanting to zoom out to show the rest of the panel at times (if there is a panel of speakers) and on audience. The better option here probably would be to use two cameras and switch between them instead. My Sony camcorder will still have use it seems! (instead of getting another G6 or whatever).

Yup. That's how most professional productions do it. And it's why I still have and shoot with my GH1 even though I have a GH2, and still shoot with the GH1/2 even though I also have a T4i (650D), and still shoot with all of those even though I also have a 70D. So I can have one wide shot, one close-up, one reverse (of the audience, for example) and one hand-held to capture whatever else comes up.

Quote:
some are adding speedboosters which changes the focal lenses and makes them brighter. Some are quite expensive ($400 for a Metabones one) but cheaper alternatives are out there which seem to be quite good ($120 for Mitakon Lens Turbo and the RJ Lens Turbo). What do you think of this idea?

Personally, I'm not a fan of adding extra lenses. But to be fair, when downscaling to HD video resolution, there shouldn't be much of an adverse impact to image quality. And if anyone ever makes a speed booster that takes full advantage of m4/3's 2X crop factor, I might buy one. But I don't think the APS-C ones are worthwhile for me.

Mark

*note that even LED lights get warm while in use, so if you do decide to make your own diffusers, make sure to use flame resistant material (e.g. ripstop nylon, not tissue paper (don't laugh, I've actually seen this) ) and attach them to the "barn doors" with wooden clothes pins, not plastic (which can melt). (Metal binder clips can also work as long as you let them cool off before you undo them.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
waoh, lighting can be quite expensive! I was thinking I could get away with a light on the camera hot shoe, especially for the interview type shot but perhaps no?

Would I be right to assume that a larger light kit like the ones you mention are for larger spaces (i.e. when greater distance from camera and subject(s) being shot)?

Seems like lighting is a whole new knowledge area!

Just did some basic reading: rim light and back light are the same thing right? You have "background" light as a fourth?

Adding diffusers is so that you have more soft/natural looking light and does not "beam" in a sort of straight line? Interesting to know you can DIY and make your own, that would save quite a bit of money judging from those links.

It seems like all these lights are LED?

In your last post you talked about dynamic range: so this is how well a camera gets the colour (British spelling) right when there is a lot of light (sunlight) and the subject can often be too dark? So if a camera can expose both correctly then the better it is? Does adding lights play a role here? I'm thinking this is only a problem one has outdoors shooting towards the sky.

Back to the zooming, instead of zooming and panning on a tripod, should I get one of these: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4-way-Macro-R ... 1662972%26 and do this more often? I understanding it's quite limiting as there is not much room for manoeuvre but could replace the current plate on my tripod and do a lot more with this? Thinking for speeches/conferences.

Oh, and I did not quite understand this:
Quote:
Personally, I'm not a fan of adding extra lenses. But to be fair, when downscaling to HD video resolution, there shouldn't be much of an adverse impact to image quality.

Downscaling to HD?

Thanks again!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
here are a couple I've seen that mount on the camera shoe: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dimmable-Digita ... mera+light

Says it can reach 20 ft. The below is more expensive and states it can reach 40 ft. I don't quite understand that though as both have 160 LEDs.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pro-XB-2-LED- ... 0860594203


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 727
Quote:
waoh, lighting can be quite expensive! I was thinking I could get away with a light on the camera hot shoe, especially for the interview type shot but perhaps no?

Well, first of all, keep in mind the relative cost. e.g. you could get the F&V 3-light kit and 3 stands (~$50 ea.) and spend less than you would on one Pany 35-100mm f2.8 lens. And if/when you get to the point where you're shooting with multiple cameras, those 3 lights will be lighting the set for all of your cameras. Whereas, if you bought the 35-100mm lens and (eventually) another G6, you'd need to buy a second 35-100mm lens for the second camera.

Second, one can always "get away" with whatever one wants to, but even for stills/photography, the two easiest ways to improve your images/lighting are:

1) use a diffuser/bounce card
2) get an off-camera flash

Now, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to take a good picture with a bare on-camera flash. But it's a lot easier if you're not limited to just a bare on-camera flash.

Quote:
Would I be right to assume that a larger light kit like the ones you mention are for larger spaces (i.e. when greater distance from camera and subject(s) being shot)?

No, light intensity falls off according to the inverse square law. So LED panels (like the ones I linked to) need to be relatively close to the subject. Especially once you add diffusers. (Say, 5 meters or less.) If you need to light someone in a lecture hall, for example, you'd probably want to go with Fresnels. (The drawbacks being: they're larger, heavier, more expensive, draw a lot of power, and put out a lot of heat.)

Quote:
Just did some basic reading: rim light and back light are the same thing right? You have "background" light as a fourth?

Yes, "rim" and "back light" are the same. By "background light", I meant a light specifically for your background/backdrop. (e.g. a bookshelf behind the person being interviewed.)

Quote:
Adding diffusers is so that you have more soft/natural looking light and does not "beam" in a sort of straight line?

Yes, also to make it easier on the talent/subject's eyes. (So they're not squinting.)

Quote:
In your last post you talked about dynamic range: so this is how well a camera gets the colour (British spelling) right when there is a lot of light (sunlight) and the subject can often be too dark? So if a camera can expose both correctly then the better it is? Does adding lights play a role here? I'm thinking this is only a problem one has outdoors shooting towards the sky.

No, dynamic range is the range between the brightest and darkest parts of the image. Nothing really to do with color (or colour ;-) ). It's even a concern if you're shooting in B&W.

Let's hypothetically say there's a scale that goes from pitch black at 0 to the midday sun at 100. Now say you have a camera with a dynamic range of 50. Depending on how you set the camera's exposure, that dynamic range can go from pitch black to 50, and show everything brighter than 50 as pure white, or it can go from 50 to 100 and show everything darker than 50 as pure black, or something in between, say, 25 to 75 with everything darker than 25 as black and everything brighter than 75 as white.

Where lighting comes in is: say you have a scene with a dynamic range that goes from 20 to 80. You light the dark spots to bring them up to 30, so now you can set your exposure to go from 30 to 80.

And to tie this back into the previous post: as ISO increases, dynamic range drops (to hypothetically, maybe 47 at ISO400, 40 at ISO800, 30 at ISO1600... again, speaking strictly hypothetically. I'm just picking numbers for the sake of illustration.)

Quote:
Back to the zooming, instead of zooming and panning on a tripod, should I get one of these: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4-way-Macro-R ... 1662972%26 and do this more often?

Personally, I think you'd do better to spend your money elsewhere first. Heck, I don't even have one of those (yet)!

Quote:
Downscaling to HD?

When capturing full resolution stills/photos, the G6 uses a resolution of 4,608 x 2,592 but HD video is only 1,920 x 1,080 so the sensor readout is "downscaled".

Mark

P.S. re: the LED hot shoe mounted panels you linked to: I would stick with one of the websites/brands I linked to previously because I've found them to make quality products at reasonable prices. e.g. although it's out of stock as I type this, ePhoto has a similar 170 LED panel for $80. It also comes with 3 filters. Of course, not being in the UK, I have no idea how shipping would work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
Thanks for putting light costs into perspective.

Quote:
No, dynamic range is the range between the brightest and darkest parts of the image. Nothing really to do with color (or colour ;-) ). It's even a concern if you're shooting in B&W.

Think I'm clearer on dynamic range now. So better quality cameras can do better at making darker objects completely black and lighter ones from going plain white?
When you said
Quote:
Depending on how you set the camera's exposure
are you referring to ISO and aperture (and shutter if photo)?

I do see what you mean here as I shot what I saw as a well-exposed shot but the pages of the book that the speaker was quoting from were totally white. Aperture was pretty wide, about f1.8 and it was recording was brighter than room actually was (lighting was a bit dull in the room).

Quote:
Personally, I think you'd do better to spend your money elsewhere first. Heck, I don't even have one of those (yet)!


Having looked at that, I think it's something for macro photography. What might be better is something like a 60cm slider that I can attach to a tripod and they are not too expensive (£60-£80). Not sure if they would be useful for doing speaker on desk with bookshelf shot, or conference.

Quote:
the LED hot shoe mounted panels you linked to: I would stick with one of the websites/brands I linked to previously because I've found them to make quality products at reasonable prices. e.g. although it's out of stock as I type this, ePhoto has a similar 170 LED panel for $80. It also comes with 3 filters. Of course, not being in the UK, I have no idea how shipping would work.


yes, did find that they don't have it in stock. This particular reviewer seems to really like the Neewer CN-160: http://photofocus.com/2013/01/07/the-ch ... ever-used/ - but there may be some that disagree

Oh, another question about when you said you have a number of different cameras that you use. Do they not all produce a different look? Are you still able to use different cameras in one production when the quality and look of the picture may vary quite a bit? Just thinking if my Sony video camera could still be of use. Thanks.


Last edited by Qadri on Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
By the way, I did my first video shoot. it was with the Pentax 25mm 1.4 c-mount as the kit lens was not bright enough for the fairly dull lighting in the room.

I set the aperture to around f1.8 as did not want to risk going of focus as you mentioned how narrow the focus is when stopped down very low. Also did not want to have it over exposed.

When i played it back on a bigger screen, I was stunned by the quality and sharpness of the video. Can't recall my video camera being as good as that. This was beyond expectation.

Just worried that once it goes online on youtube it will go down in quality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 727
Quote:
Think I'm clearer on dynamic range now. So better quality cameras can do better at making darker objects completely black and lighter ones from going plain white?

Um, no. It's the other way around: the wider the dynamic range, the more shadow detail can be captured before the camera renders everything as pure black; similarly, the more highlight detail can be captured before everything is rendered as pure white.

Perhaps it will help to elaborate on the previous hypothetical:

"Let's hypothetically say there's a scale that goes from pitch black at 0 to the midday sun at 100. Now say you have a camera with a dynamic range of 50. Depending on how you set the camera's exposure, that dynamic range can go from pitch black to 50, and show everything brighter than 50 as pure white, or it can go from 50 to 100 and show everything darker than 50 as pure black, or something in between, say, 25 to 75 with everything darker than 25 as black and everything brighter than 75 as white.

Where lighting comes in is: say you have a scene with a dynamic range that goes from 20 to 80. You light the dark spots to bring them up to 30, so now you can set your exposure to go from 30 to 80.
"

Let's say, instead of a dynamic range of 50, you had a better camera that has a dynamic range of 60 (or more). Then you wouldn't need lights (although you still might want to use them). You could just set your exposure range to capture from 20-80.

Whereas, with the "50 Dynamic Range" camera and no lights, you'd either have to lose highlight detail (expose for 20-70 and have everything above 70 be white) or lose shadow detail (expose for 30-80 and have 20-30 be black) or lose a bit of both (expose for 25-75 and have 20-25 be black and 75-80 be white).

Quote:
are you referring to ISO and aperture (and shutter if photo)?

Now, continuing with the above example with regards to exposure:

Let's say that, after setting the aperture (DoF) and shutter (motion blur) you want, when using the "50 DR" camera at its base ISO (hypothetically, 160), the image is under exposed. (The camera's sensor is capturing 50-100, but the (unlit) scene goes from 20-80. So the sensor only "sees" the 50-80 parts with everything in the 20-50 range being rendered as black.)

So now you increase the ISO (to, let's say, 800) so that the camera's brightest level matches the scene's brightest level (of 80). But remember from the previous post:

"as ISO increases, dynamic range drops (to hypothetically, maybe 47 at ISO400, 40 at ISO800, 30 at ISO1600..."

So at ISO800 the "50 DR" camera now only captures a dynamic range of 40. i.e. the sensor "sees" 40-80 and everything darker than that (from 20-40) is rendered as black. (But note that, by increasing ISO, we've gone from 50-80 at ISO160 to 40-80 at ISO800. So better, but not great.*)

So now you light the dark sections of the image to bring them up to 40 so the camera can capture everything. e.g. you use a background light so, instead of a person in front of a black/shadowy background, the camera can pickup the bookshelf that the person is actually in front of.

Quote:
This particular reviewer seems to really like the Neewer CN-160

I've heard they are decent for the price, but I would rather go with Z96s from F&V. (A quick Google search turned up an old review/"shootout" that said, in the comments, that Z96s were/(are?) available in the EU via eBay.)

Quote:
Oh, another question about when you said you have a number of different cameras that you use. Do they not all produce a different look? Are you still able to use different cameras in one production when the quality and look of the picture may vary quite a bit?

Good catch! You're really getting the hang of this! Yes, there's some difference, particularly between brands (in my case, Panasonic vs Canon). But I can get them to work together well enough for me with a bit of prep:

1) do a bunch of test shoots and play with the in-camera image adjustments (in my case, mostly color and contrast since Panasonic tends to be greener and flatter than Canon) to get the cameras as close as possible.

2) plan to shoot the same thing with similar cameras and different things with different cameras. e.g. going back to the example in my previous post, I'd plan to shoot the wide and close-up of the speaker on one brand, while shooting the reverse angle (audience) and hand-held (inserts) on the other brand.

{3) and with a little tweaking in post, it's usually not distracting. But yes, you can still see it if you're looking for it. But if the client wants better, s/he needs to pay me more! :-) }

Quote:
When i played it back on a bigger screen, I was stunned by the quality and sharpness of the video.

Glad to hear it!

Quote:
Just worried that once it goes online on youtube it will go down in quality.

Yup. That gets back to "consider your delivery/display method", as I said way back up thread.

It's also why Gordon (and a lot of other folks) use Vimeo - Mark

*And this gets back to why, a few posts back, I said, "Short answer: yes, keep the ISO as low as possible." Because it would be even better if you also lit the rest of the scene (especially the subject) in addition to the dark areas (background) so that you wouldn't have to raise ISO which would mean no drop off in dynamic range. e.g. light the subject to bring it/him/her up from 80 to 100 so you can use ISO160 and still have a dynamic range of 50. (note: you'd still light the background to bring it up from 20 to 50 so it wouldn't be all black/shadow.) This also shows why it's good to have a few lights, not just one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:10 am
Posts: 2
Gordon Laing wrote:
Hi everyone, here's the official thread to discuss the Panasonic Lumix G6, and my Panasonic Lumix G6 review!

Image


Thanks Gordon for this review. Is one of the most detailed review for G6. After I readed it I was sure that G6 is my favorite camera, but unfortunately I don't readed it with enough care, before I buyed it, to see G6 have not slowmotion and now I'm looking for slowmotin and I can't belive G6 have not this feature. I see precedent model feture for slowmotion with ability to shot 100 fps in HD format and 200 Fps in VGA format, like TZ40, or less advanced 100 fps in VGA and 200 fps in little format like 320x240, I think like FZ200. I was sure that G6 have a slowmotion featue like this camera I mentionated if no much advanced, something like 100 fps in FullHD format and 200 fps in HD format. Now I'm so disappointed with G6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:10 am
Posts: 2
emilclick wrote:
Gordon Laing wrote:
Hi everyone, here's the official thread to discuss the Panasonic Lumix G6, and my Panasonic Lumix G6 review!

Image


Thanks Gordon for this review. Is one of the most detailed review for G6. After I readed it I was sure that G6 is my favorite camera, but unfortunately I don't readed it with enough care, before I buyed it, to see G6 have not slowmotion and now I'm looking for slowmotin and I can't belive G6 have not this feature. I see precedent model feture for slowmotion with ability to shot 100 fps in HD format and 200 Fps in VGA format, like TZ40, or less advanced 100 fps in VGA and 200 fps in little format like 320x240, I think like FZ200. I was sure that G6 have a slowmotion featue like this camera I mentionated if no much advanced, something like 100 fps in FullHD format and 200 fps in HD format. Now I'm so disappointed with G6.

I don't know why you say:"the G6 offer 240fps Af drive..." in this review, second row at autofocus paragraph.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:29 am
Posts: 727
Quote:
I don't know why you say:"the G6 offer 240fps Af drive..." in this review, second row at autofocus paragraph.

Key phrase there is "at autofocus paragraph". Gordon is talking about the autofocus, not any slow motion capability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:59 pm
Posts: 1
Little mistake: Quote from Gordon:

Quote:
"In the head section is a small popup flash with a Guide Number of 10.5, based on the base sensitivity of 160 ISO. This is roughly equivalent to the Canon EOS SL1 / 100D which has a Guide Number of 9.4 at 100 ISO. There's also a hotshoe that supports external flashguns including the FL220 / FL360 / FL500 with TTL auto metering; but there's no built-in wireless flash control. The fastest flash sync speed is 1/160."


The G6 does have, to my surprise (just as GH3) build in 4 channel iTTL wireless flash control...
It works flawless with my Olympus FL36R flashguns.

See PDF manual G6 on page 146:

By using flashes that support the wireless control (DMW-FL360L: optional), you can
control firing of the built-in flash (or a flash attached to the hot shoe of this unit) and three
flash groups separately.
1 Set the external flashes to be controlled to RC Mode, and then place them.
• Set the channel and groups for the external flashes to be controlled.
2 Select [Flash] on the [Rec] menu. (P43)
3 Select [Wireless] and then touch [ON].
• When [Wireless] is set to [ON], [WL] is displayed on the flash icon on the recording
screen.
• When making detailed settings of the wireless flash, set the following from [Flash].
[Wireless Channel]
Select the channel that corresponds to the channel of the external flash you want to
control.
Settings: [1CH]/[2CH]/[3CH]/[4CH]
[Wireless FP]
During wireless recording, an external flash fires an FP flash (high speed repetition of flash
firing). This firing allows recording with the flash at a fast shutter speed.
Settings: [ON]/[OFF]
[Communication Light]
Set the communication light level for wireless recording.
Settings: [HIGH]/[STANDARD]/[LOW]
[Wireless Setup]
• Press the [DISP.] button to fire a test-flash.
A Firing Mode
B Flash output
C Luminosity ratio


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
Hi Maestro, I've been busy with other things and have managed to come back to the camera for some more video shoots. First of all I should say thank you as I've learnt a lot from your posts in this thread and have passed on information to others, especially those helping me out.

I made a typing error in expressing my understanding of dynamic range. I meant to say

"Think I'm clearer on dynamic range now. So better quality cameras can do better at NOT making darker objects completely black and lighter ones from going plain white?"

But the error worked out well as I understood it better in your further clarifications! What do you mean by this by the way: "...You could just set your exposure range to capture from 20-80." - you mean setting aperture and ISO?

Does the G6 have good dynamic range?

The recordings with my 25mm Pentax f1.4 have been decent but I bought a Canon FD 35-105mm f3.5 constant aperture with adapter for longer distances and it has not been good (only used it indoors). I've now ordered the Olympus 45mm f1.8 as you said it's must. I think I fluked one good video with the Pentax C-mount but not been delighted with anything after that, not been as sharp as i would have liked or as I've seen on the videos so many people are able to make (and i'm always having to shoot wide open, for light and not for DOF!). Your point about a traditional video camera being the easy option does keep ringing in my head! Now that I've started though I can't turn back and have to be able to nail this (or do it right at least!).

I bought that cheap 160 LED light and it's been okay but I really need something proper (and need to learn more about positioning lights and controlling light level in myenvironment). The links you sent were from the US, is there a chance you can suggest something available in the UK? I could even start with one good light given my tight budget and then add a couple more when I have more to spend. Some I think come with a grid to shift the direction of light away being too hard on the subject's face? Would be good if they have an adapter as the cheap one I have lasts less than an hour on a Sony battery.

Thanks again!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 29
Just saw something like this, cheap and good user reviews: http://www.amazon.co.uk/540w-Studio-Fla ... ghting+kit

Am I missing something here?

The umbrellas indicate it may be for photography? Or is lighting same for both? I noted the ones you linked were LEDs, is that the way to go?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group