Don't use V-Log in 8bit. This is more or less destroying your color resolution. V-Log squeezes the full DR of 14bit into the codec with 8 or 10 bit. In post, you can de-squeeze the DR and choose what is going into the final 8bit result just like you do with you stills when processing raw. V-Log 10bit is already a compromise because you lose 4 bit so you reduce the number of colors to a 16'th of the original. With 8bit you are voluntarily throwing away another 75% of the colors.

I guess im asking randomly but does someone know of a method to get back into an Instagram account?? I was dumb forgot the password. I appreciate any tips you can give me

@Grayson Beckett Instablaster ;)

@Franco Zayne I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and I'm trying it out atm. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.

Thats old one there new sigma 85mm 1.4 its like half the size

I was about to comment the same thing. Also it's best to leave picture profile as neutral as possible as it does effect the histogram in live view.

This is mostly true, however, the effects of contrast and saturation reduction can sometimes be baked into the raw files with some cameras. Nikon does this with their mirrorless line, not sure about lumix. It basically has the same effect as pulling a slider in lightroom ever so slightly, and that is represented when you do bring the photos into lightroom/photoshop. I could be wrong about some of this but this is my understanding of the topic.

Thanks for clarifying. I was watching, wondering why is James setting auto-balance when only using RAW? Confusing for those not in the know.

@@exquisitewidget4227 Fuji does something like that too

Got me wondering too. However, those will be applied to the JPG preview (I suspect) embedded in the RAW file so will affect initial appearance when loaded into Lightroom etc.

If you buy any lenses I recommend you don't buy EF-S lenses. If you ever upgrade to full frame you will be able to use the standard EF lenses.

@@robertfoley2140 indeed. EF-S lenses are money pit. You can only buy them used for low price if you need them, but be aware that you wont be able to resell them very fast when the time comes to sell them..

Those are and were never inherant advantages of MFT cameras. The rral advantages were weight in the lenses and image stabilization which still hold today because they physically cannot be improved on larger sensors.

Nothing can beat bigger format.. FF is slowly becoming the normal standard in photography.

@@S3l3ct1ve why would they "become" the normal standard if they were mainstream long before MFT cameras? People have said the same argument 10 yeard ago since the MFT's inception. mft cameras will always be more practical and if it makes the photographer most comfortable, it will give them greater power to take better photos than any numbers or specsheets ever could. There are numerous examples out there, I myself included

@@andrewally3570 FF only now becoming the main standard because of price drop. 15 years ago an entry FF camera with a lens cost nearly ~5k $ a lot of Pros were shooting with APSC cameras, because they couldn`t afford a canon 5D mark II. Now you can get a new FF body with a lens for 1/2 of a monthly salary... This is insane compared to the prices back in the day.. Another thing is manufacturers are pushing FF further and diminishing MFT and even APSC standards, this became very apparent with Sony A7 and canon RP models dropping the FF entry lvl prices towards the ~850$ mark they basically caught up with APSC camera prices, making this segment not worthy to look at.. So all the guys from APSC they will convert to FF sooner or later due to the price drops, because majority of those photographers didint buy FF in the first place because of the price difference. MFT on the other hand had a huge fanboyism campaign going on for at least ~10 years, Fuji/Olympus doing the peak advertisement for the masses to the point where they even gave cameras to the selected pros so they could influence buyers in choosing those cameras. Basically their advertised strengths were different color science involving fuji presets etc.. On olympus the image stabilization and cool apps were the main thing. In my country this aggressive campaign looked very interesting because the pros that were given the cameras actively spread the rumors that they were switching from their FF bodies to Fuji because the fuji had the superior color science and the film looks. While in reality that was simply post procesed jpgs out of the camera and some guys noticed that those results could be achieved with any raw in PS, thats how a lot of PS actions started to emerge and the fuji "dream" was crushed after a year or two of this campaign.. Now getting down to the practical things the mobile phones really are kicking these days and their practicality can not be compared neither to MFT or FF cameras. And the smaller sensor cameras are getting pushed out of market more and more by the mobile phones.. So MFT is in tight position because on the practicality side of things they simply cant compete with phones... And on quality side of things they simply cant compete with bigger formats. And even on the price range side of things they cant do much, because the FF dropped to the APSC price standards... These 3 reasons were the key why Olympus was sold... The Fuji however has huge backing by the movie sector and also they have MF which is ~10-15 years future for all camera industry and they probably will have to develop their MF line very fast if they want to compete with someone in the market. Panasonic is kind of in the tightest spot I guess, because their go to thing was video, but the big boys got to that segment too and Panasonic doesn`t have any other interest points aside that. The whole future of cameras lies in the lenses really. The manufacturer that will be able to give different lens options for descent prices will hold the higher position in the future. then again every manufacturer today has pretty much everything the user needs so what else they can introduce to us so we would stick to the certain manufacturer, well that is a mystery, with the tempo we are having now, the new good sh*t will have to be almost magical grade technology, because even an old 5D mark Ii is pretty damn good camera today and it is a bargain..

@@S3l3ct1ve @Linas Vaičiukynas @Linas Vaičiukynas the fanboyism comes from FF cameras that think they're eyes can perceive a difference between 20 MFT megapixels and 24 FF megapixels. A test was conducted a few years ago comparing the image quality of a Samsung Galaxy Note 9 and a Sony A7iii. Straight away you would expect that the A7iii would produce better images, which in no doubt it did if you pixel peeped and whatnot, but the majority of people could not tell the difference. This just shows for consumers, the sensor difference or any camera technology difference, the extra money for a designated camera did not matter. With HDR on, images out of a note 9 still look exceptionally well. However, the camera industry is funded more by consumers than hardcore photographers, and despite all the econokic benefits, why buy an a7iii? There is much more to a camera than sensor size, that is what most full frame fanboys cannot grasp the idea of or choose to ignore. With MFT, the advantages as s a designated camera the advantages such as durability, lens compatibility, image stabalisation, Camera Mount versatility and practicality, you cannot compare a phone to an mft camera or ANY camera for that matter, and the term practicality itself has trivialities: what I mean is it will always be easier to pull your phone out of your pocket than your camera out your bag to shoot an image but not to equip gear that will take a professional image or video. And since phones are getting so competitive nowadays, they are doing the same strangling to FF cameras so do not be fooled. Since your argument I guess was that phones are more practical and saying "phones are pushing MFT cameras out the market", you are wrong. If you look specifically at cameras, mft cameras will always be the most practical for interchangeable lenses. This is because if you look at the average camera bag, lets say, with a Leica 100-400 compared to a g9, which is a large mft camera, the lens is what takes the most stress to carry around, not the body, and more than likely no one who has that lens will be carrying it around alone. In FF 35mm equivalent, that would be a 200-800 lens, and let me not get started on what truck you will need to lug that around. This is the case with all lenses of MFT and larger sensors with equivalent focal lengths. This is one of the reasons why MFT Cameras are more practical and superior for travelling. Now when you tell me the big boys are catching up, they are integrating technology into their sensors that mft had long before. MFT has had this before, for example, 10 bit video long before FF cameras because it is physically easier to extract that data from a smaller sensor than a larger one while being more affordable; and quite frankly in the day time there is no difference to somebody watching it, especially if it is on the internet. FF will always be able to catch up to the tech in an mft camera at a greater and UNNECESSARY expense. No FF camera is able to match the burst rates of a g9 to this day and the g9 is 3 years old. Where your big boys at? The amount of work a current ff camera would have to do to keep up would make it overheat or crash, and if Olympus or Panasonic wanted to raise the bar, they could make MFT cameras faster and faster until out of sight of FF cameras because they are small but extremely powerful. The fact that only nowadays FF manufacturerd are adding 6.5 stop stab. And 10 bit video or 4k 4:2.2 video when mft cameras had it already shows how ahead of their time they are. The reason Olympus and Panasonic are straying from the mft platform is because consumers show more interest in numbers than real world ease of use. Unless you are an eagle you cannot tell the difference between an mft image and ff if you had lenses of equivalent T stop, so it is possible to get the same image out of either platform. As i said before, you can never match the stabilisation of a FF camera to that which an mft camera such as the g9 is capable of, for one reason: space in the camera body. Now, you can create a larger sensor camera to give yiu the same level of stab. but it would be so astronomically huge and impractical, you have to decide if you would want to use that, but at the end of the day it will always be better on an mft camera because for the same camera body the sensor will have more stabalisation space. Wildlife photographers reap the benefit of this especially. The Canon 5D mkii is a great steal nowadays, i agree, but for one that is a dslr, and investing in a dslr in this day and age is a very unwise decision considering how far mirrorless cameras have come. And if you ever used an Olympus em1 mkiii or a Panny g9, I would be amazed to see you pick up the 5d before them. This is without mentioning that the two mft cameras mentioned are still cheaper. If you look at a panny gx7, you would mistake it for a point and shoot camera if you did not know what you were looking at. This is a prime example of how versatile mft cameras can be, something you cannot find in the FF format. However, I concede to the few inherant advantages of a FF camera. For a start, you can always get a higher resolution image, simply for the reason that you can fit more pixels onto the sensor. As attractive as this sounds, it is practically useless for anything being uploaded or viewed on the internet because of the compression anyway, so there is no point in getting a FF camera for that anyway. For prints? Depending on the size or viewing distance, you can either see a distinct advantage of a FF over MFT print because of the resolution or, cannot tell the difference. There is a video showing the prints produced by a GH5. All were impressive and NOBODY complained, but the FF camera produces a higher resolution so I guess that is better. It looks to me now that people just want that extra sensor size out of greed, right? No, there is low light capability. I mentioned earlier once they have the equivalent T stop, you cannot tell the difference. What this summarised says is that the amount of light absorbed by the image sensor is mostly dependent on how much light is let into the camera. This is due to the lens. With a speedbooster attached to an MFT camera, lets say you attach a Nikon 85mm f1.4 to that, it will allow the same amount of information into the camera as it would a D850 and the sensor size would almost not matter. However, as the speed booster technically amplifies the size of the individual pixels, it amplifies the space between them, this means a marginal amount more of light wilk be wasted. I say marginal because yiu cannot tell the difference between that and if it were on a d850. There is one last point I can remember: crop factor. Because of the smaller crop factor of a FF camera, it is better to use in a room where space is limited. Again it is possible with an mft, but the lens you will need to get the same image with the person the same distance from the camera while maintaining the same amount of light absorption by the camera would shift the practicality aspect around and it would be cheaper to get a FF setup. In that regard, a FF camera wins, i agree. All in all, it depends on the job to be taken up by the photographers and these cameras, there is a place in the market for both where both are selectively preferred. Because of the versatility, I much prefer an MFT camera, but FF cameras are definitely not better.

Yup I can't see a good reason to use V-Log in 8-bit.

James is in Wales where the rules are different (as they are in Scotland and Northern Ireland).

@@neilford5262 thanks my mistake

It's always because of low light/ higher ISO differences.

He made a video about it :) it was particularly about low light and he "apprently" was finding that the 3:2 ratio was working better for his current work with prints. Tbh I think he just wanted to try full-frame again. Ive owned a gh5 for almost 4 years now and I am a die hard m43 supporter but I did just buy a Lumix S5 as well. Was two was simy interested in trying full frame, particularly for portrait work and shooting music performances for low-light. What I discovered is you don't need to be one or the other. I still love my gh5, I think more than my S5 as it the weight and size savings still make it a preferred choice of camera for my hobby, not professional, side of photography. I have a particular liking to telephoto landscape photography and my lumix 100-300mm lens is by far one of, it out my most used lens I own on m43. To get an equivalent lense I would need a 200-600, which despite the fact I don't believe there is one for the S5, yet, would be extremely big and heavy, while also being extremely expensive that I would just prefer to take my gh5. A lot of my photos are taken in landscape orientation and I find I much prefer the 4:3 ratio for that over 3:2. 3:2 is just so narrow when portrait! There's a place for both! Each with completely valid advantages and disadvantages!

RAW file format has jpeg embedded in it as a standard (used as a preview on camera / in editors), RAW + jpeg is just pointless bloat.

Yep. I use AP most of the time too and it makes me laugh how all those who think they're elite bang on about how you're not a proper photographer unless you shoot in manual! So boring in their attitudes.

Perhaps a check from Panasonic that told him to start to promote the S series cameras 😜🤭🤭🤭🤭

@@RealStevenStifler Haha yeah this is only confirming my suspicions that Panasonic is pulling M43 mid term.

I think it's for video when shooting 4K25P

depends on focal length too, with longer lens you will need 1/200 or 1/500.