Leaderboard

I may not like that you punch an editor, but I will defend to the death your right to punch an editor, because you are a megastar and missing a steak will ruin your creativity.

​I agree and I can't really fathom why some are saying the E-M5ii is a disaster (and some with such passion). I mean 1 year ago when the E-M1 was released, it received comments like: "Whether you’re a professional commercial shooter, single operator film artist or an enthusiastic amateur, the E-M1 is worth considering purely because of that stabiliser, small form factor and lovely EVF." "As for more casual users, you can do point and shoot video with the E-M1 better than most of the competition as well – again due to the stabilisation system." "The main reason this camera is so useful for video is that it’s the only interchangeable lens camera I’d consider for handheld shooting with zero rigging, completely bare-bones as if shooting stills." "The big surprise is just how similar video quality is on the E-M1 and GH3. They both resolve very good levels of detail (as long as you don’t turn digital sharpening off in camera and forget to apply it in post)" And this was on a camera that is 30p only, with 24MBit codec, no live audio-levels, and no ability to change settings when recording at all. Now I understand that times have changed and we now have the GH4, A7s and NX1 to consider but none of these have anything close to the stabilisation of the E-M1/E-M5ii, which is the reason to choose Olympus. Now I am disappointed that image quality isn't better, as it really should be for 2015, but Olympus has improved numerous other aspects and hopefully will roll out some further updates to improve the quirks now that video is actually a feature they are promoting. Anyway, there is no right or wrong and no camera is perfect, so we must each decide what features are a priority to you and your shooting style. I understand and respect those who choose maximal image quality but also understand and respect those who are prepared to accept 'good enough' IQ for the freedom of in-body stabilisation..

As the house is probably burning at night, AND the a7s cost more, I'd of course grab the Sony!

​I disagree with this as well. I think many people new to shooting video buy these cameras because they are seeking a 'cinematic' look. Obviously this is a nebulous term but DOF control is a big part of this which is small sensor camcorders are not an option. They want a camera that could allow them to create a pro-quality film, even if that film is about their kids or a family vacation. They watch vimeo staff picks and think, if only I had that camera I could make a film just like that. They then look at professional review sites, and dream for a moment about owning a C100/300 or 1DC or a FS7 before reality sets in (mainly $$$ and size/weight) and they accept a small, prosumer ILC is the way to go, and they are happy as after all some vimeo staff picks are filmed on a GH4 or A7s. They then get their GH4/A7s and while the image is great, their film isn't like the staff picks they were watching. As they chase around their kids, or when on holiday try to shoot artistic shots while keeping up with their family, their handheld image is shaky with rolling shutter and just doesn't look as good as they hoped. With time they then realise how much skill and time goes into shooting those staff picks, and how the camera is the smallest part of the equation -how lighting, composition, audio, editing, colour grading and stable camera movement are just if not more important. This is why I think the E-M5ii is a good choice for the average consumer. I think for the run and gun, uncontrolled event style shooting that they do when out with their family, having a stable image and the ability to add cinematic style camera movement with no rigging or set-up time adds more to the quality of their film than higher resolution. But hey its just my opinion, everyone can make their own decision.

Some interesting viewing...   Russell is almost spot on -   And you could make a nice headline out of this one - "F1 is homosexual" - Clarkson    

I would like to see Clarkson do a show for someone like HBO or FX.

Unless RJ Speedboosters have drastically improved in the last 6 months, i would avoid. Blue spots appearing out of nowhere in footage. If you're using for paid jobs, just go for Metabones.

​I can testify to this. It's very true and not only disappointing, but probably unnecessary if the Oly engineers had a bit more experience with video. After all, Sony cleaned it up it's video with the A6000. Will Oly eventually learn to do the same in future models? Let's hope. If one's goal (in owning a stills camera that shoots video) is to have the best IQ possible, the EM5II shouldn't be a consideration. Nope. If you need a tool that offers a unique creative feature such as 5-axis, then think about it. Simple. Simple. Simple. Why that reality should bother people in any semi-serious way is just odd. Wedding videographers shooting close ups and medium shots of faces with shallow DOF? You really need to have a go with this camera; might be a godsend for your work. If, on the other hand, you want the bestest IQ from a consumer camera for creative/technical purposes (or, as seems to be the case often, bragging rights) then grab a different product. I personally don't see the need to have so much trepidation about something you're not even going to own. The fact that the sentiments above can be repeated ad nauseam and some will still continue to rail becomes a study in phycological behavior rather than an exchange about cameras. But, it's the internet. I understand. I pretty sure god invented it to distract us all from the impending apocalypse. He's magnanimous in that way. Heck, I'm culpable in this silliness. I'm here posting like mad because I'm blowing off steam while dealing with a difficult client --and this alleviates some of that stress. That's my excuse anyway.

Hmm OK let's be a bit clearer here. Image quality is almost the same as the E-M5's video mode actually. Most of the time it looks identical. What has changed is the codec. It has a higher bitrate now, so less mud and it will grade a tiny bit better with a bit less banding, but it's still WAY behind the GH4 and others.

Don't forget to check out the Nikon D750 as an option. Just finished a 3 day production for a music video with it and really pushed its to its limits. The Colors are spot on accurate, super easy to grade in post, flat profile gives you huge dynamic range that has a really nice roll off in the highlights. Rolling shutter, Aliasing, Moire hard to find even in my hand held shots with a higher shutter speed. Also combined with the Ninja 2 I get very clean 1080p. I used to own 5D mark III, and Magic latern Raw which was very nice colors with 14bit raw, but nightmare to work with that hack. But I am getting very similar results with D750 and the ninja 2 (even though its only 8bit color), plus more no more rolling shutter and clipping at 11 stops.

The only person who has jeopardised the show and these jobs is Clarkson. Stop blaming others for calling his unacceptable behaviour unacceptable. He's had a few warnings, has any of them prompted him to consider his responsibilities and what is at stake in this regard? If this well educated and remunerated person did, the outcome is clear, he doesn't give a fuck. He prefers to take the money and present himself at odds with the job requirements.

I like NX1's colour even though I only got it for a week compare to Panasonics (used since GH1), as I can always rent the A7s but not GH4/NX1 around my area so that's another reason why I bought NX1.

You should suggest samsung adds a 2.5k mode with the options of 60fps, 30fps, and 24 fps to the NX1 and also a 1:1 crop mode like on the nx500. Both those options would help with rolling shutter and having more detailed 60fps would come in handy as well!

It all depends on the way you pursue these offences. If the guy get lynched, you would be right. If he gets a fair chance to defend himself, there is nothing wrong with pursueing him for his offences. Indeed, a society where these offences are being pursued in a fair way is a much better place than a society that does not care.

I think keep the a7s - rent or borrow or steal a NX1 - do a test side by side. Don't base your desire on other people or forums. It is indeed highly subjective. the reason I like the NX1 is because it's small and light and the battery lasts forever and the screen is excellent and right away very nice skintones. But the a7s has nicer motion. SO yes, don't give up - just yet. Don't listen to any of us. Trust your gut.

​I'm not the most talented shooter, but all you have to do with this camera is accept the limitations and exploit the advantages. You'll get good shots. Maybe that's why I kind of like ...some...most (?)... of what I'm getting from the Oly. It's "quieting" my lens while handheld and making simple quick shots look rather elegant. Moreover, if one is a decent visual storyteller a lot of this clutching-of-IQ-pearls is not that important. I know some of us might require a velvet tufted chaise to fall into when we witness the EM5II's moiré, but others will roll with it and make it work. Obviously, here on the internet, it's all great procrastination fodder. For me especially...I think this is my 20th post on the topic. Anyway, I have some pragmatic "real world" footage from yesterday. When I get it edited, I'll put up a link; w/the raw ungraded shots.

John, at the risk of sounding flippant, I think what most people want is simply what Olympus said they would get.

I've found the key to getting accurate skin tones on the A7s to be ALWAYS do a good manual white balance, and using the right picture profile. Like you, I do corporate work where you can't get away with arty skin tones. When required you need a straightforward look that just looks right and doesn't draw attention to itself. I tried S-Log and I'm still finding my way into it, but I'd recommend Kholi's picture profiles from another message board. I won't link to it here as I'm not sure if that's against the rules, but you can find it easy enough with a google search or drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction. This profile really gave me colour which matches almost exactly with my 5D mk2. It's from a guy called Spreeni who slightly modified one of Kholi's profiles. It's a cine2 profile which is relatively flat but perks right up with minor colour correction and is much easier than S-Log 2 to deal with. Try this out before you drop your A7s altogether. And remember to do that white balance! I recently got an Expodisc 2 and it's really helped a lot. Black Level: -11 Gamma : Cine2 Black Gamma > Range: Wide , Level: +7 Knee > Mode: Manual , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid, Manual Set > Point: 105%, Slope: 0 Colore Mode: Pro Saturation: +6 Color Phase 0 Color Depth > R+3, G-3, B+1,, C-3, M-1, Y-0 Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0 White balance: No Grid setting needed !

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here... I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see. As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

SlippyWill.... Sorry, I missed that. re: second point. He has not been suspended for anything he has done as his "persona" and certainly not anything that is stifling creativity. This is why I think the blog post is a nonsense.

I agree. I read a quote that the BBC need to learn how to handle larger than life characters. Nonsense. Punching someone is not larger than life. You can't send out a message that "it's ok...it's clarkson being Clarkson!"

Well, yea, he did. Off camera, on camera, out take... What's the difference, he said it, he apologised. It shows the mindset of the man. I'm about as hard to offend as possible, I'm not offended by Clarkson. I don't even dislike the guy (other than being a chelsea fan)... I laughed out loud when he said he was "off to the job centre" yesterday. I just don't believe that huge stars should be given different rights to anyone else. If the producer had punched Clarkson, do you think he would be working today? This diatribe is hiding an ugly point behind an indie/creativity mask.... That big stars should be able to do whatever they want, without consequence... Because they bring in money and entertain. It's the opposite of the indie mindset.

Hey Andrew clearly this bothers you the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out. Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed. There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour. If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. so there are my thoughts. if you miss the show watch the movie version. It's more believable. "fast and the furious"

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense. 1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise. 2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning. If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based. This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks. I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.