Leaderboard

Hi everyone, I'd like to share my new short film 'a moment before awakening'  Created by me in Bory Tucholskie National Park (Poland) Hope you'll like it YT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsaVcFnKw8 or VIMEO https://vimeo.com/74399092  

I'm an experienced photographer just trying to get serious about video, primarily of my 1 and 4 year old children and capturing short video clips to accompany stills while traveling (I travel quite a bit for work). I have OM-D EM5 and same lenses as you (but 17 and 25 instead of the 20/1.7 which I used to have).   I ended up buying a GH3 during the recent sale and have shot stills and video with it last two weeks or so. From a complete novice perspective, my observations are:   GH3 is better at motion - even I can see how the OM-D breaks down with a quick pan or a fast running 4 year old. But for most of the things I video, OM-D is fine GH3 does 1080p60, allowing for slow motion at 24fps in camera or in post (I'm trying to learn Adobe Premiere CC). This is pretty neat. Not sure if or how you can do effective slo-mo with the OM-D. IBIS on OM-D is amazing. It really makes video clips look a lot better, and works for all lenses. The OIS on the 12-35 is obviously not as effective as OM-D IBIS for handheld video. It seems to jump erratically from time to time, and just isn't as effective, as consistently. I think AF tracking is better on the GH3 than the OM-D. Manual focus is obviously the way to go, but I'm getting decent results with the AF tracking on the GH3 with the 12-35. In retrospect, I should have skipped the GH3 and just used the OM-D until I felt like I was hitting limitations.   You can do manual exposure control with the OM-D. If you hit record with the mode dial in 'M', you're in control.

sometimes i feel like andy lee's 2nd forum account, but i guess i just agree with him on this. btw im excluding the d5200, dont know much about it. just GH3 vs G6.   lets assume they would go for the same price. wow, that would be tough. high bitrate on one side, focus peaking on the other...well you seem to know the specs so lets cut to my point. even if these cameras had the same price tag im 70% sure that i would go for the G6, but that greatly depends whats important to you. set your priorities.   but in the end the G6 is half the price of the GH3, and thats why its a no brainer. the only thing im sad about is that it doesnt come with a weather sealed body :( but except that...i dont need that high bitrate. i mean why do we all just talk about bitrates. the video quality of the G6 is absolutely great out of the box. why produce video files 3 times of that size. certainly not for editing. my hackintosh with premiere pro eats any native h264 files like nothing. i dont need all-i for that.   but you came to the point where you said, what if you have the money to get a GH3? well then you should buy lenses for that money. beautiful voigtlander and slr magic lenses, my friend.   The G6 is the real successor of the GH2. simple as that. i hated my GH2 for the high level of noise - all gone with the G6, better view finder, better display, better touchscreen, some nice gimmicks, focus peaking. im not saying that the GH3 is not a great camera, but it didnt quite fit in the GH-family-tree because they changed soo many things about it. some of which arent improvements...   oh and the G6's footage looks more cinematic when you turn off sharpening to -5. the sharpening does a nice job, but it also sharpens the areas that are slighty out of focus, which gives it more of a small-sensor-kinda-look.

You have a good memory, sir! And yes, its a beauty, in perfect condition, which produces stunning images - not too sharp, but not soft, just the perfect resolution (I think the MC helps?).  I much prefer it to the 36 i had, it actually feels like a lens (just the right amount of weight) & not some plastic toy. And, you can use it with a wider variety of lenses. To me its the perfect Anamorphic - it has done me proud when filming or taking pictures.

  http://www.specsavers.co.uk

That I don't know. I'd be surprised if the EM1 didn't have manual control, or the EM5 for that matter.   Andrew reviewed the EM5 here : http://www.eoshd.com/content/8565/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review

For what you're doing there, probably not, the amazing stabilisation of the EM5 will be a more useful function than higher bit rates and so on.   Of all of those I'd either choose the EM1 so you're upgrading to something you'll be used to, still with the stabilisation, or the G6 for sharp slow motion video.

http://vimeo.com/74613572   My serene short macro film.   Mostly shot on Pentax-A 100mm f4 macro, with very close up shots using a reversed Sigma 24mm f2.8 super wide II.   I used my k-5 for tests and stills, but used a Canon 600d with Technicolor cinestyle installed for the actual shoot, as the dynamic range is greater, and it has manual controls. The lenses are attached using a canon-pentax adapter, which can be bought from Ebay for £10/$15.   To get closer I used a set of 50mm extension tubes, and sometimes used the Canon 600D’s 3x digital zoom (which is still full 1080p HD, a useful feature and no extra depth of field loss!)   The film itself is rather light on narrative; it’s just a progression of – hopefully!  â€“ interesting shots.   Hope you like it. I’m happy to answer questions on how I did specific shots and it’s always good to get feedback.  

  Anybody who has the opportunity please try it on a full frame sensor. Mark III with magic lantern or scarlet if you have access to one. Get your step rings ready, back filter size is 50mm so get the one you need to screw on your 50mm focal length lens :-) thanks!

If anyone tried to steal my Iscorama it would be "Bite the curb" time!

The early unfinished prototype seems good already, and I certainly think Rich is onto something with oval bokeh + vintage lens for this one.   I see a lot of creative choices with this anamorphic: - Want a sharp, more digital look with a lot of contrast? Go for some modern lenses. - Want a look with less contrast? Go with vintage lenses. - Is 1.33 bokeh not enough for the look? Go for a solution like the DSO Trump with its oval aperture. - Also, no need to waste any pixels to achieve 2.35:1 (which ought to be great for dslr/mirrorless which do not always have the best resolution).   An anamorphic with options like these for a price of $799 seems like a great deal to me. Especially in addition with the two achromats that you can order without some major hunting on the Internet.   I really love my Iscorama - but the paranoia when traveling with it is no fun. I'd rather travel with an item that I know I can order a replacement for if stolen or damaged. At $799 for the SLR Magic Anamorphic it's not super cheap to pay up for if you waste it - but it sure beats crying a river if you'd ever trash an Iscorama!   Andrew, how do you align this anamorphic? Does it have some similar rotating mechanism to Iscorama?

I was out testing my two Dog Schidt Optiks lenses in Stockholm, and found two guys playing on a street and decided to shoot them:   https://vimeo.com/75661923   I have two FF58's: one low contrast +  more flares and amber tone, and one with a bit more contrast but with less flaring and neutral tone. This is shot with the one that flares less.   Footage is a bit shaky, all I had for stabilizing the camera was a minitripod, Velbon Ultra Maxi Mini: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4mZLVSi-Cl4d8xdloHiWpLyIjGvb5EBnbDU5Eg0LuG1WLfmX-JA   Having the weight of the tripod and a bit more to hold on to helps a bit, but not much.