Seeing these cameras go for about £600 on eBay used at the moment. I only just bought one a few years ago for about double the price used, what gives? I know the S5ii and iix have much better autofocus for video but honestly if you want to get into filmmaking, this camera is an absolute bargain now for what it can do.The built in H265 with vlog is fantastic. L Mount means you can adapt a shit ton of vintage glass to it and it can be easily rigged out into a cinema camera if needed. Think I might snag myself another one soon to use as a B cam for documentary and gig work.
Ok cool story bro. Great thread anon.
I'm getting one with the Sigma 2.8 zooms. You can get the same setup in Sony and it's more expensive.
>>4309250yeah the S5 is legit. Let people gear chase and follow trends.
>>4310871The S5 is like, "the camera" for "gear chasers"Its literally a trendy camera only to youtube watching gearfags because all of the gearfags on youtube are having constant circlejerks and jizzing their pants over>THE CODECS BRO, THE CODECS>MY OTHERWISE SHITTY MACBOOK CAN EDIT IT FASTER (NO BENEFIT OUTSIDE OF MACBOOKS)>THE VIDEO MODES>OH MY GOD THE 4K IS DCIMeanwhile the autofocus is trash and panusonics lifeless, neutral colors always NEED "grading" so the level of effort you have to put in (manual focus only, always shoot raw/log) is ridiculous... all for "codecs" that have really have no appreciable benefit unless you are trying to use editing to shoot midday as sunset or salvage ridiculously wrong white balance decisions. And it's not like more common, cheaper cameras that take more common, cheaper lenses can't handle retarded "i need the 422" situations like those.And then there's frame peepers. Pixel peepers I can understand. A photo is not going anywhere and they've been too detailed for one glance since, uh, the beginning of photography, but movie stills? Who pauses and zooms in, besides conspiracy theorists who think they see aliens? Panusonic users.>watches the same clip 100 times>pauses>THERE>zooms way in on a wrinkle in a shirt>See that spot? HE DIDNT SHOOT THIS IN ALL-I! Probably because his shitty camera couldn't! -panusonic user, ignoring that the video is always in focus and the colors came out good with no editing
>>4310873actually this is basically anyone who wants to use FF for video
>>4310873>lifeless, neutral colors always NEED "grading"so... a raw file?
>>4310906No? Raw files do not contain colors. The input profile for the raw does. Raw files do produce different data from the same colors compared to raw files from different cameras, but there's no actual color in them. They're monochrome grids. A program running an algorithm uses an input profile to guestimate color from the monochrome grid.Most editors have a totally flat profile to start from plus a editor specific interpretation and a few camera matching profiles that replicate SOOC jpegs. Capture one, for example, is known for their very good input profiles that are like camera matching+.Maybe you meant "so... a log gamma?". Maybe, but panusonic color science in sooc video is dull enough that you might as well shoot in log.
>>4310913this guy is retarded
>>4309250>Full frame>VideoWhy do people keep doing this to themselves
>>4310873Did your brain get fried by fiddling too much using your film simulation dial on a Fuji so that you can only enjoy oversaturated colors?If you really believe a cheapo S5 is for gear chasers, do you also believe that. the GH5 and before that the Canon EOS 5D MKII were for gear chasers? Those cameras are just beginner-priced modes of entry that offer a lot of flexibility vs. other cameras. A gear chaser would opt for something like the Sony ZV-E1, which offers a whole lot of compromise, awful colour science and a few gimmicks for 2500 bucks upwards.
