Leaderboard

Above: my GH3 kitted out with Leica 14-50mm F2.8, Lanparte follow focus, carbon matte box and baseplate Six months in the making here is my final and full review of the Panasonic GH3 jointly published with DPReview.com. I highly recommend checking out that review as well, to which I contributed the video mode insights. The Panasonic GH3 is an affordable $1299 hybrid camera and has a special legacy to build on with indie filmmakers. Does it succeed? Read the full article here

Come one guys... Don't make it harder than it is. The numbers are there. The sensor size is known (in the specsheet on the Blackmagic website), so is the crop factor! There is no doubt about it. Of course the cropfactor is measured from fullframe camera's, because the term cropfactor comes from the photography world I suppose. We all know what the cropfactor of 2x means for MFT, or what the cropfactor of 1.6x means for our Canons (and 1.5x for Nikon dslrs). So lets stick to the standard that a fullframe camera with a 36x24mm sized sensor has a cropfactor of 1x. The cropfactor is determined by the diagonal of the sensor. In video mode the aspect ratio is 16:9 instead of 3:2, so the active sensor area is 36 x 20.25mm for fullframe. The math: Fullframe (5D Mark III): Active sensor area 36 x 20.25 mm, diagonal of 41,30mm. Blackmagic Pocket: Active sensor area 12,48 x 7,02 mm, diagonal is 14.32 mm. Divide 41.30 by 14.32 = 2,88. So the cropfactor (in relation to a 35mm fulframe dslr) is 2,88x. Fact. his data is what the test is based on and I don't have any reason to believe it is incorrect. Science just prohibits from Blackmagic from changing anything to this fact. Or the Pocket must have a built in a Speed Booster... but it doesn't. Lets just accept that the cropfactor is 2.88x, at least till someone can prove otherwise. The people mailing answers like 'we don't know the technical details yet' aren't very technical I suppose. I'm not a professor either, but this is all very basic stuff and the sensor size is in the spec sheet, so the cropfactor is know. Sorry, It just frustrates me that people get all confused over this.. The way Blackmagic is answering to those questions doesn't help a lot either.

  I'm currently using Portrait but without turning contrast down. I leave that in the middle. Saturation too. Sharpness I dial right down to -5 and add in post. Noise reduction I also dial right down. I use 1080/25p IPB 50Mbit rather than ALL-I. Saves card space and looks a bit better.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing. I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images. How? Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC. In Photoshop: Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm! To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it. List terms explained: Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera No = doesn't cover the sensor Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example) Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list Primes Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof] Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof] Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof] Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof] Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof] Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof] Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)] Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof] SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD) Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof] Zooms Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

With the raw format becoming affordable for the first time this year (Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Red One, Ikonoskop) many aspiring filmmakers are considering taking advantage. But to edit raw you need to up the ante on the hardware side. What is the most suitable (and affordable) editing rig for raw - Windows, Mac Pro or Hackintosh?

I have a background in music performance and education, and this has been going around social media sites between my music friends. However I can't help but think it is also incredibly relevant to those of us in the video/film realm.    Just some food for thought. I hope its encouraging      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5JsiMe6Qc

Like to share this moody short film I created. Used GH3, Kowa 8Z and SLR Magic 35mm. https://vimeo.com/64129362

https://vimeo.com/63892665   Things that stand out...   Compressed raw will likely come to the 2.5K camera, with firmware update Firmware on the Pocket Cinema Camera is identical to BMCC, only sensor part is different (debayering etc.) They hope to do a Quicktime wrapper for Cinema DNG making it easier to edit. Raw frames in Quicktime MOV!   All very positive stuff and I like how knowledgable and engineering lead their CEO is. Not a business strategist but a proper technical man with ideas.

BINGO!!!......list of 321 c mount lenses ... yes THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE!! http://us.c-mount.passion.pro/ Julian we have alot of lenses to test!!

Thanks Tony, but I believe chuck would approve of blood red. Tis the colour of justice.  

I agree with you. But we all know how the "big players" play their game. Do only the bare necessities! Only if the number of sales decreases or the competition catches up, only then make an effort. Look at all those Panasonic (consumer) G cameras or the Canon 700D. Actually, this is planned obsolescence, rather than real innovation. By the way, does the GH2 really have 11 stops of DR?? I thought it would be less...

Thanks guys! made his choice alot easier! :D   Think he´s leaning towards the GF3 beacuse of the size, he´s not a video geek, so quality alone wont be all for him.

This looks a little gimmicky to me. Guess I'll have to wait and hear it before I pass judgement. The addition of knobs over buttons for level adjustments is welcome

i think you may have a disconnect here... the original cost of those optics would of been a min of 15-22 thousand dollars each. i would be very surprised if he would treat them like a set of lomo these are way beyond lomo.   for a joke i would offer him 3000 us for the set and see what his reaction will be. if they have not been dropped in the sea they are treasure. they are the older generation so sort after everyone including cooke and vantage hawk angenieux are all designing in flaws because the new lens are so horribly sterile.an early set of hawks are kind of posh lomo using russian design and fantastic solid german engineering. value is in the set matched optics are becoming impossible to find because people sell stuff one by one. selling quick they are worth over 10 thousand us selling slow much more. like everything optical  they need to have some type of glass inside so you might want to check.in general air does not  give you a nice anamorphic image  :)

Prices are all relative & it sounds like you just need to haggle. The thing with haggling is to start low & you already know that he basically wants rid of them (he can't hire them & they are in questionable condition). There are 2 ways you could go about this (after you've found out how much it will cost to repair them): 1) Offer a stupid price, he laughs at you & you ask him how much he wants, you state that you really don't have that sort of cash & then offer more (but way below your max) - then the real haggling begins! 2) Ask him how much he wants for them & then state you don't have that much, but could offer him x amount - again the haggling begins!   Either the way you get him to reveal his hand first & not yours (never tell him how much you've got to spend!)   Remember, what he wants for them should never be the price that you pay - as all sellers want to get as much as possible & their dream price is always unrealistic. Also, remember if he hasn't rented them out for 2 years & they are in a questionable state - some money is better than none. Don't appear too keen or excited, as he'll sense your weakness & exploit it -  you can always walk away & come back another day. If, say you get to your limit & he's still not budging, say you'll offer him cash (he doesn't have to declare that) & if he still isn't tempted, leave him your number & ask him to think about it.   Give it a go, they're Hawk Anamorphics! - they're probably the best opportunity you'll get to own something by this company & their vintage B Series won't be bad.  

  Well there's certainly no touching the image quality on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera for the price. Although the Pocket version won't have quite the same amount of detail as 2.5K raw on the BMCC it will maintain similar ProRes 1080p results and they are also DSLR beating.   The Pocket Cinema Camera sensor is smaller than the GH3 by quite a considerable margin though so the look of your current M43 glass will change, and the main advantage with the GH3 is that the workflow is much faster and the ergonomics far more convenient. You get more features too, like 1080/60p, audio-meters, etc.   Even if you don't edit in raw, the Blackmagic cameras all urge you to spend hours in post tweaking the colours. With the GH2 and GH3 I hardly ever felt the need to heavily grade the footage so I worked far quicker.   If you're shooting a documentary I think the GH3 wins.

  There will be a review of the Lanparte stuff. I have got the carbon rods and matte box, follow focus with hard stops and the quick release baseplate. You are right about the quality vs price thing - it is just right. Quality is American standard but without the US price tag.

I think you have to decide for yourself what is most important. Image Quality: BMPCC probably wins big time with the dynamic range and the raw editing options - But the GH3 is still very good Ease of use: GH3 - Flip-screen, oled viewfinder, lots of buttons, touch screen. Reasonable file sizes Lens flexibility: Both pretty flexible, GH3 wins because finding good wide angles or bright standard lenses for the BMPCC is going to be more difficult (and expensive) with the 3x cropfactor. The GH3 is a much more complete camera than the BMPCC. The Pocket is just the cheapest way to get raw footage.

Thanks for this review. Here is a short film about a train market, filmed with gh3 and lumix 12-35mm:

I just got the DR-60D this past Friday.  I have the Zoom H4n too, so I did a small test yesterday using both.  These are my observations:   DR-60D has more headroom on the highs.  The H4n can suffer some, especially when almost at 0db.  However, the H4n has a deeper low end, more fuller sound.  Not necessarily deeper bass, but it just sounds more robust.   For live sound, there is the dual recording feature which makes two copies of the recording, one at normal and another at up to -12db lower. This really helps when there's a sudden burst of sound during interviews.  This only works with two channels (one set) not all four channels.  I did use this and it worked very well.   Form factor is very different.  At least I have no fear of dropping the DR-60D.  I dropped my first H4n and it landed on the mics, crushing it.  So there is that fear.  The DR-60D has no internal mics, but it's easy to connect a small shotgun or other mic into the miniplug socket.  4 channel recording works well, and it's great to mix sound board with live ambient sound.   Overall I think my friend said it best:  DR-60D has very clean sound but it's more suited for studio-like sound.  H4n is more akin to live direct recording, with more ambient fuller sound.  Of course this is just straight to the recorder.  The sound can still be worked on a computer.   I'll keep both for now since I still need something for live concert recordings.  But for interviews, the DR-60D is just awesome.  I also have the 6AA battery pack, and it really does extend the life of the unit, especially when using phantom power for shotgun mics.  I think I got over 6 hours.  Way better than maybe an hour using phantom power on the H4n.

Nice review! I've had the GH3 for a few months and a few extra cons for me: - Ex-tele only works with 24/25/30fps modes. If you, like me, deliver to TV and have to shoot in 50/60i/p you don't have the ex-tele mode that worked in GH2. This is really disappointing! - On-display info disappears after 10 seconds. If you shoot an interview and want to keep an eye on the audio levels or other settings you have to hit a button every 10 seconds to have the info displayed. Also after the info has disappeared and you want to change a setting like ISO you have to push the button twice; Once to "wake" up the screen and once to access the setting. I still don't understand this behavior. - I'm not too sure about the build quality... I'm about to return my second GH3. On the first one the hot shoe came off, and the second one I have now shuts down randomly causing lost clips if I'm in record. Both these problems have been reported by others as well. Other than that, great camera! AndersM

  That statement doesn't make any sense. If what you are trying to say is that you can't get shallow DOF from s16 mm then that's patently untrue, not crazy shallow like FF, but still possible. It all depends on lens size, distance from your subject and aperture. In fact I bet 95% of people slagging off s16mm sensors have never even worked with the medium........ But you know what they say "got a 5D, you're a DOP".

I hope you left the seller good feedback? It is a superb lens, especially with the inclusion of the Redstan components. 

Hacked GH1 is best option for $350.   GH2 won't be that cheap! 550D is OK but GH1 has less moire and aliasing, rotating screen, mirrorless lens mount for a wider variety of lenses and the hack.

Here's the link to Dave's video and some add'l info: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/12/dave-dugdale-variable-nd-filter-shootout/   The nice thing about vari-ND or fader-ND is that you can set your camera with your camera's specific baseline settings (ISO 200, 1/60 shutter). Then you can select the aperature you wish (f1.8) AND THEN use the ND filter to actually finish setting the exposure for your image. It makes shooting outside fun -- you get lots of free light to work with!

John Brawley and Giles Livesky show a raw workflow with the BMC in Resolve 9. Granted I'm curious what kind of Nuclear fusion processor is being used to show raw dng grades in real time, this shows a little bit of the massive potential of these 2 together.. (BMC, Resolve). It sucks, because the Gh3 looks like it might be amazing at half the price. With the other $1700 from the BMC plus the $500 on SSD's, that's a couple of nice lenses, or one really nice lens, heliopan nd, z finder, etc.. All good investments. However there is a holy shit moment here at 12:05 in: https://vimeo.com/49667411 I mean, damn.