Leaderboard

The thing is that the reason the cameras you've listed get talked about a lot is because they're ALL good video cameras. Now that the GH4, A7S and Blackmagic cameras are here, the cameras you've named (not including the BMPCC) are looking increasingly similar in quality. They simply have different strengths and weaknesses. There isn't one that is THE best. You have to decide which one YOU like best and/or which one fits your needs best. I've had the G6 and D5300 for a year now, and recently got a BMPCC. I've used a GX7 a couple of times but only briefly, but I am familiar with the image. Same with the GH3. This is my opinion of the following as video cameras: D5300 Pros: Beautiful image when using long and/or fast lenses, and in low/ambient light. Colours are VERY appealing. Contrary to EOSHD review I recommend shooting with a Neutral or Flaat profile to grade in post, as colours can be artificial in standard modes and dynamic range can be very good with Flaat_11. The codec is fairly strong so banding is rarely an issue. Cons: Just a bit too soft for wide, detailed shots or deep DOF. Not the easiest camera to use for video. G6 Pros: Beautifuly detailed image in both wide and long shots with deep or shallow DOF. Colours in good light conditions are very nice and can be graded to a very decent level. It's a PLEASURE to shoot video with (I only wish it and a headphone jack). EVF, Peaking, good tilt LCD, form factor, mic jack, etc all make it a viable camcorder. AVCHD 24p has the best image, MP4 50/60p (1080) is indistinguishable without close/critical inspection. With a speed booster it is a S35 camera with stuff the C100 doesn't have (decent EVF, 60p) and an image that isn't worlds away from it at for about 1/12th of the cost. Cons: Not so great in low/poor light (it excels in good sunlight), though it's ok and noticeably better than the GH2. Colours are nice but can get muddy quickly in poor light. Dynamic range is mediocre. No headphone jack. BMPCC Pros: The image from the BMPCC really is in another league to the other cameras here. I love it. It frustrates me that there is so much low contrast 'film effect' stuff on Vimeo etc shot with the Pocket and graded to hipster death with film convert or OTT LUTs. It is capable of such a sharp, punchy, saturated and contrasty image that is so much more pleasing than any 8-bit camera. Cons: It's not an easy camera to use (there are a lot of things I DO like about the form factor and usage though, and firmware updates have added a lot of good stuff). Why bury ISO, WB and shutter angle so deep in the menu? And it DOES need a rig, VF, and very wide, fast lenses or speed booster. Moire is a problem sometimes too - it can be unpleasant. GX7 I haven't used this camera enough to give an informed opinion, but from what Seb and Andy are saying it is fine to shoot with (I didn't like the EVF when I tried it) and if you don't need an external mic then you don't have much advantages in usability with a G6. The image is definitely better - this is obvious from any videos you watch. I think of it as somewhere between the G6 and D5300 - colour science and low light are noticeably improved. GH3 Barely used it so can't really comment. A lot of amazing stuff has been shot on the GH3, but I can't see a compelling reason to spend the extra money on it now. The G6 has peaking, which really is a huge feature if you want to use manual glass. The GX7 has a superior image. And the GH4 has made it look extremely dated. On the plus side it has a headphone jack and a more pro-level body. A6000 Haven't used this at all but I have ruled this camera out based on image problems alone. It's perhaps easier to use than the D5300 but if it really does share the same sensor Sony have really messed up. It has quite severe moire issues and is not great in low light. It's not as sharp as the Panasonics, the codec seems quite weak and I personally am not keen on the colours it produces. Unless you desperately want a native APSC sensor with an EVF at a low price (Sony is your only option really) I can't see any reason to go with this. I may be biased though, as I never seem to like Sony's image quality - even the A7S. My recommendations (i.e. my opinion): GX7 scores the most overall points here I think. If you don't need an external mic go for it. The G6 is still a superb camera and a joy to shoot video with, but the image has some (small) limitations in comparison to the GX7. Of my 3 cameras it's the one I would keep if I was doing commercial or documentary work and could only have one. Definitely. It's very reliable and has great video features. The BMPCC is by far the best video camera here in terms of image. If I was just doing personal/art stuff it is the camera of mine I would keep if I could only have one. But it isn't really suitable as a shot-grabber/r&g workhorse. The D5300 has a special image and if I'm shooting indoors or want a very 'filmic' shallow DOF look it is the camera I go for. I love it. But it is not made for shooting video with AT ALL. For the A6000, although I've seen some really nice stuff shot with it, I think it's image quality is the least versatile (i.e. worst) here. My recommendation is to stay away from it.

If you're not fussed about Dual Focus, then look at the following 2x anamorphics: Kowa for Bell&Howell - this is one of the best quality lenses in terms of glass (definitely on a par with an Iscorama). Kowa Prominar 8Z or 16H - these are the same as above, but not as good glass. Sankor (Singer) 16D - this is the cheapest & not as sharp as the above lenses, has blue flares. (These 4 lenses have big rear elements, which gives you more choice with the taking lenses you can use) 2 Others to consider: Iscomorphot 8/2x - made by Isco-Gottingen (same firm as Iscorama), small & Very Sharp (sharper than an Iscorama), but its a fixed focus lens @ 4m (so you'll need diopters). This can be had for under £300. Isco Widescreen 2000 MC 1.5x - Bigger brother of Iscomorphot, but eventhough its a fixed focus @ 5m, if you stop down the taking lens to f4/5.6 you can rack focus. This is about £500. Edit: Forgot the Bolex Moller! (Slaps head & DOH!) There are those big heavy colourful lens beasts as well, but they are...how should I put it...cheap & too clinical for my tastes.

I've shot on two G6's since they first come out 18 months ago and as you all know Im a big fan of this camera I just got a GX7 last month and it is a 15/20% better image than the G6. Much much cleaner and clearer image with alot LESS noise , it noiticebale especially at night shooting in streets GX7 is without a doubt the best Panasonic 1080p camera they have made so far . The EVF is very good and nicley on the left side and swivels which is great on my shoulder rigs Also GX7 has a much sturdier metal lens mount than the g6 - I get body flex on the G6 with the big Nikon 'Bourne ' lenses THE Gx7 is more stable for these big lenses on a rig. The menus and functions are 95% the same as the G6 - they have added a few extra features like 2 settings on peaking for how strong it is. The main thing is its a better newer sensor and this shows in the image - I was stunned at how good it is!!! this is now my main 'A' camera for night time shooting .

I don't agree. Sorry! To my eye the C100 and the very similar Mk II do not look better than the A7S, which has HD more in league with the F5. Actually better because it isn't as noisy. The A7S is full frame, nicer rendering of EF lenses than Super 35 and the 4K output is superior - 4x the data in the file than 1080p ProRes, not just 4x the detail. The only image quality related issues the C100 Mk II is superior over the A7S is rolling shutter. I dare say the A7S is better in low light too!   The Blackmagic cameras if you stay under ISO 800 offer better skin tones, more tones in the lows (much nicer shadows with less banding) and the BMCC in particular has a significant dynamic range advantage in raw.   In terms of grading, raw does not compare to AVCHD, nor ProRes via HDMI. It's obvious you can do more with raw. The C100 Mk II will not give you the advantages of raw, unlike the 5D3 with Magic Lantern.   The GH4 is of course more details and is 4x the amount of data in the H.264 file than is the case with H.264 on the C100 Mk II. The GH4 is a bit noisy at times and the smaller sensor needs Speed Booster which has trades offs of its own, but I will bet you a lot of money that if you gave me two shots, one from the C100 2 and one from the GH4 I could match them in post so closely you wouldn't be able to tell them apart at 1080p.   I can appreciate why the C100 Mk II is a work tool, and at $5500 it's a very solid one which does very good 1080p with some of the best ergonomics, excellent audio and built in ND filters. But let's not pretend that $5500 is getting you anything magical on the image side. Very good compressed 8bit 1080p yes, with decent colour straight off the bat with no grading. It's certainly convenient.

To read part 1 of my Sony A7S review click here A long time has passed since part 1 of this review but I've been spending a lot of time with the A7S. I am really under the skin of this camera. That's a good sign because somewhere along the way, the A7S became my main filmmaking tool. Perhaps surprisingly for me, a huge Panasonic GH series advocate on EOSHD over the years, I have been using the Sony A7S more often. The GH4 still has many advantages the A7S doesn't have, like longer battery run-times, a better screen, quicker boot time and of course an internal 4K codec though. Read the full article here

There's a lot of dual focus lenses that look good. But to me it was too much extra in the workflow for alignment, dual focusing. Not the kind of fast workflow that suits me. 1) The cheap solution: Get some affordable 2x anamorphic adapter like the above-mentioned Sankor, Schneider Cinelux or Isco Ultrastar. The FM lens module that comes out soon should make these a bit easier to handle thanks to rail mount system and single focusing. 2) Expensive and rare/hard-to-get solution: The Iscorama 36 is wonderful. 1.5x anamorphic adapter. Very hard to find a replacement if you'd damage it. 3) Solution if you're patient: If you can wait for a while, there's also the SLR Magic 2x anamorphic coming in the near future. Andrew had an article with test footage from an early prototype if you check the archive on EOSHD. Personally I really love the look that you get out of 2x anamorphics. Nothing bad about the 1.5x image out of the Iscorama - it's lovely as well, but the 2x look is something I tend to prefer. Hence I'm considering getting the FM lens module as well... And I really recommend finding some way of buying the anamorphic guide. The guide + this whole forum + the anamorphic lens-yclopedia that this forum put together are the best resources I've found on anamorphic lenses. Here's a link to the anamorphic lens-yclopedia: https://drive.google.com/a/bambuser.com/folderview?id=0BzVcUB-5ReiZajVncE9rYU9heDQ&usp=sharing#

I know that behaviour - I once had the Olympus 12mm f2.0 which works about the same. However, as much as i like the scale, i dislike this "pop" effect since changing the focus smoothly is not possible... A lens like those from Olympus with smooth focusing would be my wet dream.

I see no truly compelling reason here to upgrade from our current C100s for corporate/event work. Unless of course the image is significantly better, which is possible, but not likely. The FS7 just makes more sense as a future-proof device, even though colour-wise it just doesn't match the Canons. I think the big C are on the verge of pushing the conservative upgrades too far for their own good... The only odd positive side-effect is how long their kit holds value for, since they don't trump their own equipment every five minutes like Sony. But unfortunately they'll soon be lagging a long way behind competitor specs...

Wally Pfister , who is Christoper Nolan's DOP for 5 films they have done together all shot on anamorphic super 35mm film, his main 3 lenses that get used 90% of the time are 50mm, 75mm and 180mm These are used time after time in his films you can hear him talking about this on the ASC website podcast. If I was wanting to shoot cinematic looking anamorphic I would be listening to Wally !! he's one of the best out there still shooting anamorphic on all his films. (yes he does also have the luxury of shooting Imax for some scenes but these are with spherical lenses all f2.8 but Im not talking about his Imax stuff just the anamorphic shooting he does alot of) So all you APSC and Micro 4/3 shooters (m4/3 ...stick a speed booster on to make your camera have a super 35mm field of view for the lenses ) can get these lengths that Wally uses , the 5D shooters might have a problem getting the 50mm to not vingette.

I don't know about colour reproduction, but in terms of noise and dynamic range for stills and video I found the G6 and GH3 to be noticeably inferior to the GX7. I haven't got a GH4 but I've heard it uses the same sensor as the GX7. The GX7 also handles the best imo, except for when using large lenses (500g+). Also I wish it had a 50mbps codec. If I had $1000 or £700 now I would buy the LX100 to accompany my GX7. If I was starting from scratch... I don't know really.

Panasonic LX100.

my suggestion would be to just plump and pay for a iscorama 36 if you have the budget. if not, as has already been suggested a lovely sankor or similar. dual focus isnt a negative quality if you can set a workflow to suit fixed focus / no racking shots. if you cant live with this, the 'rama is your only option. (or this new fm module - which is gonna be a rather big and heavy lump!) again, weight shouldnt be seen as a negative, but an attribute you use when considering how to shoot the piece. IMO you should be shooting with as big sensor as possible. if not, at least with a speed booster. the whole reason you wanna go anamorphic is for the 'look'. with the gh4 it might have a 4:3 mode in 4k, but the sensor area becomes only slightly bigger than s16mm - and as we all know, its harder to get bokeh with smaller sensors. without bokeh, there's no point in shooting morphic IMO. nothing, and i mean nothing beats an 85mm + morphic on full frame. f2.8 and it's sharp, while being relatively wide as well as shallow. on gh4 (4k mode) you'll need a 30mm f1.4 to match the 'look', and since you;ll likely be shooting wide open a 30mm f1.4 is never as sharp as an 85mm at f2.8. just my personal opinions I have gathered after a few years of having the anamorphic illness.

35mm without crop & anamorphic no vignette would be what i'd like to see, day & night, the new test shots should be up soon...

i think you'll not seem much (if any) anamorphic character when the taking lens is that wide. you'd be better off just shooting with the 10-22 on its own. fast primes are where it's at with anamorphic. anything wider than a 35mm at f2.8 and the dof is so deep the bokeh deformation isnt visible enough to warrant the loss of resolution and hassle the anamorphic adds to the process.

g6 , rj speedbooster, plus dumb adapter and canon fd lenses as they are very very good and cheap 24, 28, 35, 50mm or get a canon fd 35-70mm f4 instead of primes its a steller zoom and cheap on speedbooster its a 25-50 f2.8 very very sharp with practically zero distortion !! very good glass in this lens then you can use lenses on dumb adapter and get one lot of focal lengths then use them on speedbooster and get another set of focal lengths

This is the kind of camera Jim Jannard would have criticised in 2008. Now 6 years later it's 2014 and it will look like standard definition playing in a high definition world. There is no reason this cannot do 4K. The sensor in the C100 Mk II does a 4K readout. I have a very good 4K video processor / LSI in my $899 pocket camera (LX100). I have a 4K HDMI tap (4:2:2 8bit) on my $2299 one (A7S) and a 10bit 4K HDMI at $1699 with the GH4. 4K raw from Blackmagic at not much more.   If you're busting a gut making art, and you want it to be timeless, appreciated by future audiences, then 1080p 8bit is not the format to shoot it on.   If on the other hand you just want to do a job efficiently with a minimum of fuss and get paid, the C100 Mk II is a bargain. I am sure it will sell very well to the large (but shrinking) crowd of workers who don't need anything more than 1080p and 8bit AVCHD.

no - there are some very very good projection lenses by Schneider and Isco - optically they are $5000 lenses new so check them out they are cheap on ebay in your budget Schneider integrated cinelux and isco integrated ultra star - goth great small lenses

Ok guys, here is the trailer(final) of "Brokenman" hope you like it, thanks for sharing Lumix GH3+voigtlander 25mm f/0.95+Tokina 11-16 mm f2.8