Leaderboard

As a stills camera I liked the Fuji X100 - it was an actual die-hard photographic tool with gorgeous good looks in a sea of plastic consumer gadgetry. However the terrible AF and fly by wire manual focussing technology spoilt it, and the video mode was very much an afterthought. Fuji have taken steps to address all of this with the X100S getting a significant upgrade under the familiar retro style casing.

  Documentary rather than narrative but one motorsport feature that did work very well with 3D was the motorcycling film TT3D.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QldZiR9eQ_0

A REAAAAAAL HUUUUUUUMAAAAAAN BEEEEEEEEEINGGGG

  gh2/3, and really m4/3 in general, was never really intended for the pro photographer. until the gh3, panny never really incorporated 'pro-user' features; or at least advertised them as such. the gh series just happened to have some really good video output, and then only made better by vitaly and others. if you look at how these cameras were/are marketed, the intended segments aren't the pro photographer, let alone filmmaker...the users made them as such.   i don't think it would make sense for canon to make a specific 'gh3 killer,' because if you look at the buyers of these cameras, i'd say the indie filmmaker is actually a fairly small percentage. canon wouldn't make a full frame, top of the line 'pro model' dslr, and then cram it full of top of the line 'pro model' cinema eos stuff as well. people shooting dedicated stills don't need 4:2:2 color, 4k or any of the lauded video features; and people shooting dedicated video may not want the dslr form factor, rolling shutter issues or so on. it reminds me of the 'old' car saying, 'fast, cheap, reliable...pick 2.' there is no such thing as the 'perfect' all-in-one; in cameras or otherwise, because it has to be good at everything, it doesn't excel at anything.   if you already haven't bought into a canon/nikon system, (someone like me) m4/3 is at a more affordable price point for lenses (legacy lenses). there are drawbacks with crop factor, manual focus and so on, but i rarely use autofocus, even for stills, and i really haven't had any issues with the 14mm end of the kit lens not being wide enough. so for me, and i think many others, the benefits of a great video camera, pretty decent stills camera, a bunch of adaptable, fairly affordable, lenses, smaller form factor and other little details (audio levels, histogram, pretty much no moire, etc) and then the pricing of the cameras themselves, brought them to their purchasing decision. i believe canon will remain top of the camera makers, for a while. but these kind of oddball cameras like the gh series are doing enough to cause the big guys pay attention

    Fair enough.  When it comes to photography, the FF Canons excel versus m4/3.  While it is a better tool, a photographer reduced to a mere GH1 or compact will still be able to produce an amazing image.  "Knowing a system" is only a little bit more then reading a manual and shooting specific tests.   Getting a usable shot is much easier from a Canon/Nikon camera then others, which is a much better argument for owning one.  They respond well to professional care on assignment, which in my opinion is why those two companies are the go-to for professionals.  I know I'd rather hike through rain with an aging 1Ds3 and some L zooms as compared to my Arax CM/MLU; as much as I perfer images from the Arax, it is not weather sealed etc etc.

  Someone from a big cinema at Leicester square told me they don't run the lamps as bright as they should in 3D movies so they last longer, since they're so expensive, so there you go, it's all about the money. Ones make 3D films because of money, the others project them darker because of the money, same old same old.

Essentially, these large companies are currently the only ones in a position to mass-produce and sell reliable 4K cameras, and they won't do it cheaply until the hand is forced. Even Red, remember the timing of the Red One price drop, alongside the release of a certain new cinema camera?   As with RAW and the like, it's only when the competition is serious that the big boys will bother to compete. It took Sony an age to move into large-sensor video, in comparison. They spend a long time working out how to milk each new phase of development for every penny it's worth.   Reliability is very important. I've stuck with an ageing 550D (now worth what, 250 quid?) for ages because it has never, ever failed me in any way, while my two good friends with GH2s have a had all kinds of workaround, tweaks, corrupt files and so on to deal with. I know that isn't everyone's experience, but their experience meant that I stuck with lower resolution rather than deal with buggering about.   That's why people will buy Canons like the C500 (footage looks a bit ugly to me so far) and 1DC, because they know how it works already, and that it will work. Personally I have my limits when it comes to piss taking, and won't buy purposely crippled high-end products like the current Canon batch of 420 8-bit cameras. I may as well stick with 550D, or get a 600D and use the new All-I 100mbps patch from Magic Lantern Daily builds along with the Mosaic anti-aliasing filter.   If BMD had been able to pump out a ton of their cameras on time straight off, for example, I think we'd be seeing a RAW Sony or Canon sooner, but since they aren't yet competition due to the as-of-yet dire delivery speed, we shall have to wait for a response from bigger and far more risk-averse  manufacturers.   Good thing is that with BMD, Digital Bolex, Ikonoskop etc we are seeing more companies create such niche products. hopefully one of such products will appear at a hilariously low price and be simple, functional and reliable, then we can watch the big players do an RIM (Blackberry) and suffer for their stubbornness...