Leaderboard

But what is the point of posting all this pro GH4 posts in the A7S topic? Yes, I bought the GH4 myself because for me it's the best value. But maybe other people value the low light capabilities and the full frame sensor of the A7S more. Who are you to judge against them? This is not an A7S vs GH4 topic. It's a topic to show/discuss footage from the A7S. What are you even doing in this topic except for fanboying about the GH4? Why don't you just respect that fact that other people have other priorities and maybe budget isn't a problem for them (and we still don't know the price anyway so discussing about that is pointless). Just cut the GH4 crap. Again, I bought one myself, I think it's perfect. It just doesn't belong in the A7S footage topic.

Hi guys we recently shot an advert for Adidas using the 5d mk3 magic lantern raw hack. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

jurgen => thanks for the advice ;) And yes trust me I am very aware of that, it's not the camera but the guy behind the camera that makes it good. Its just that I really want the best thing possible for my money, that's all. I mean if i have the money, why not? And when I say I am new in the DSLR world is just that I don't personally own one but I use them very often for filmmaking but my knowledge is very limited I only know the 5D mark III and the 60D and some canon still lenses, I wanted to have a good advice on from people with more experience on what to buy, and I am glad because I have a very different perspective now. :) I just feel that the GH4 is a game changer, plus it's not really expensive considering the specs and it has many features that no other camera in this price range has.

As others have said, don't get so far ahead of yourself with gear purchases. Gear comes and goes. If you're - as you say - "just starting to enter the DSLR world," a GH4 with a full set of Voigtlanders might be more camera than you need or want. You say you're worried about shallow depth of field - have you any experience trying to hold focus on a subject shooting at 1.8? Or 2.8? Or 4.0? It's not as instantly simple as many of the films you're watching would have you believe! Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can't make films or shoot excellent photographs unless you have the newest, hottest camera and gear. People are and will continue to be making INCREDIBLE films on the GH1 and 2, using nothing more than the kit lens and a monopod. Buy what you can afford - if that's a GH4, so be it, but understand that it won't make better movies than will a GH3 (or any other camera, for that matter).

Yes, it is an interesting option, as long as 4K is not a must (as suggested). But please note that suggesting it just to join the acclamation choir was NOT the main point of my comment. I don't think that simply listing our favourite camera models is the 'right' answer to the "absolute" questions presented. I think he/people really should ignore the 'absolutes' and get his/their hands dirty -figuratively- with a few of his/their favourite candidates, and then just pick one that feels right in the hand. The end result, the footage from most of the candidates already mentioned, is likely to look good enough, anyway, at least after a little bit of practising. If I'm not mistaken, the existing (Nikon?) footage doesn't look too shabby to begin with, and the Nikon, together with a suitable lens and a tripod/monopod might be quite sufficient, for now. We all could get better simply with some more practise. I know I would, and I will. Just trying to save other people's money here.... ;)

Olympus zuiko primes. 24f2, 35f2, 50f1.8 and 85f2. all single coated. they'll give a lot more of a 'cine' look to a visual piece than a set of Samyang. They'll cost less, last longer and hold their value for eternity. removing the hard stops and adding a focus gear and using T1.5 instead of f1.4 onto a set of modern chinese lenses aimed at the current dslr movie making consumer (the red line to make them look like L lenses says it all) does not equal a cine lens IMO. Samyangs don't seem to create a look like Cooke's or Master Primes to me. either a full set of oly's or blow the lot on a zeiss 85mm f1.4 (contax) and shoot with only that. one thing for sure, the zeiss 85 will be the best single lens to acquire if a cinema feel is required. :)

I just got one of the cheap clones (RJ M42-M4/3) so i could use my Russain lenses with my Iscorama 54 & get wider on the BM Pocket - no problems whatsoever. So if you want a cheaper option for FD lenses then (to try out etc...), then this would be the way to go - the cheap clones aren't perfect wide open (could be the lenses too), but stopped down a little everything is sharp across the whole frame. This was an experiment for me too & i'm so impressed I might just go the whole hog - buy more Nikon lenses & get the Speedbooster for the Pocket camera (when i get the cash together).

heres a guys test that might help you. i dont like samyang lenses, they are cheap for a reason, but who can afford real cine lenses? http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2014/1/19/lens-up-my-nikkors-vs-the-rockinonsamyang-cine p.s i d rather have 1 good lens, that 3 that are meh.. i mean how much do the 3 samyang lenses cost? 1500euros? better spend that on one canon L 50 1.2

Me neither. 4K would be an added bonus. Having the possibility of shooting 4K if by any chance a project/client requires it is a plus, but I'm much more interested in the improved dynamic range, full frame sensor, XAVC-S and clean 6400-12800 ISO -no need to get to 400000 ever, I hope-.

Right now, the GH4 shooting 4K (even if delivering 1080p- downsampled in post it's the sharpest/most-detailed currently available in that price range).

Thanks for all the comments :) I have actually been working with other peoples cameras and lenses, not worrying to much about technical stuff, I have always been more of a storyteller, focusing on writing a script and directing actors. But I do want my own equipment, and increase my knowledge on cinematography which, I think, every aspiring film maker should do, because he can use it to better tell a story, obviously cinematography is at the service of the story. So that's why I want something versatile and capable of doing many things like the GH4. andy lee => I will definitely take a look a those lenses. would you know a good place to buy them?

I think you can start with a smaller budget for your lenses. For filmmaking you don't have to buy brand new high end glass. Old glass is fun! dirt cheap and it has character. If you want to spend the money anyway, you can easily allocate it to your camera. The setup I mentioned will cost like €1500 (GH4) + €720 (18-35mm) + €100 (Speed Booster Clone). You still have money left to buy some vintage glass / adapters. Anyway, if you are serious about your film making, what do you have in mind for audio? You'd probably need a budget for that too. On another note, if you don't want to spend much on the camera, score a Panasonic G6 for CHEAP! (like €400). Image quality is on par with the GH3 and it has focus peaking, the GH3 doesn't. Yes - it is a plastic/cheap camera, but great for the money. Perfect to start with. Actually I think it makes more sense to start with something like that. Of course, if you have the money burning in your pocket, support the economy, that's all fine with me :) But I see you are 19, can't imagine €2500 is peanuts for you. The G6 will be a great tool to start with, image quality won't hold you back in any way (if you think it does, look at the frontpage at the videos of Kendy, shot on a cheap 550D)... Buy some old primes + Speed Booster Clone and you are all set and done for under €1000.

First pick you camera, then the lens. Those 35mm and 85mm will behave completely different on a 5D Mark III opposed to a GH4, for example. The 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great lens, very sharp. Many people use it to film. I'd definitely go with the 18-35mm instead of the 24 and 35mm prime. Cheaper, you get both 35mm, 24mm + 18mm and everything in between! Plus you don't have to change lenses. Anyway, it all depends on which camera you are planning to buy. On a 5D Mark III the Sigma 18-35mm won't even work since it's designed for smaller sensors. So at least tell us which camera's you are considering :) Another note: since you are just starting out, maybe you don't want to spend a lot of money to start with. You can just grab a camera and buy some old manual primes (on eBay) for almost pocket change. You can always upgrade and sell your 2nd hand lenses without loss if you get a good deal. If you have the budget i'd Panasonic GH4 + Sigma 18-35mm (Nikon) + Normal Adapter + Speed Booster (can be a cheap $140 clone too, they seem to be pretty ok. Can always upgrade). With the Speed Booster you will get 'two' lenses. It will make the 18-35mm 1.8 a 13-25mm f/1.3 equivalent. On the GH4 in Cinema 4K mode (2.3x crop) that will give you ~30-57.5mm f/1.3. Use the 'normal' adapter and it will give you ~41.5-80.5mm f/1.8 (so you can use it to zoom in a bit more).

same day rough edit! password: ana it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

Yeah, it looks to be a dynamite little camera and it or the MFT BMCC are my first choice for upgrades for my GH2, even before Metabones introduced the BMD specific SpeedBooster models. Our last feature was very low budget and I just remember every dollar counting. Small luxuries made a major impact and if I'd spent the money in the beginning to get me a new camera it would have been felt elsewhere. We would have been without something, I don't know what, but it wouldn't have just been absorbed. A few months out before the actual budget was put together that would have been different, and then the new camera would have been included in the list of "existing assets".

There's always the risk of feeling buyer's remorse with technology but, realistically, your film won't be any better or worse off no matter the decision you make. 4K isn't something most folks should be concerned about. It's no guarantee of a better looking film if it was projected in a theater and if it's not being projected in a theater it's pretty much a waste of money and resources and effort that could be used elsewhere. Most theatrical films are still finished 2K (regardless of origination) unless a director has the juice to force production to pony up for a 4K finish. You would think that for $100+ million dollar blockbusters this would just be a given, since they're already spending a mint but that isn't the case. It's still quite rare. Not as rare as even a year ago but it's not standard practice to finish 4K. Making your own feature, either putting up your own money or getting some from investors, you should save yourself the headache. Spend the money that might be needed for extra storage or an upgrade to your editorial on something like catering, being able to bump your key talent's per diem a bit or the wrap party (or wrap gifts...I didn't understand the importance of these my first indie). And make sure you even really need to upgrade your camera, considering it's an asset you already own. $1500 goes a long way on an independent feature. I admit I never thought much about the T2i but that was before seeing Kendy's stuff... ...I'm a GH2 guy and know it's technically a better camera but operator talent (along with the quality of the content) can render technical jibber jabber and megabits rather meaningless.