Leaderboard

Weddings are kind of my bread and butter. Like most people here I started on Canon DSLRs, but eventually went mirrorless. While I've shot quite a few with the GH4 and A7s i/ii, my tried-and-true favorite combination for weddings for the last 2 years or so is my NX1 with a battery grip (battery life for days!) on a benro monopod. The 4k is fantastic, the 60p is excellent and the 120p is very good. For glass, probably 99% of the time I'm using either the sigma 18-35 or the rokinon 85mm. I have an SLR magic variable ND with xume magnetic filter holders, so I can just clop it on and off any lenses i use in half a second, very convenient for the running and gunning of weddings. Who needs internal NDs when it's that easy. For steadicam shots, lately I keep an NX500 with a rokinon 12mm on a zhiyun crane ready to go in my bag when I need some cool camera movement. I've pared down my wedding kit so that I can carry it all with me all the time(peak design everyday messenger for the win!) I have a nasty habit of setting things down in the moment, forgetting about them, losing them, etc. and it's just so much of a hassle to have too much gear. I've done the whole ronin thing, extra lights, all the lenses I MIGHT need, but then you have the risk of that stuff laying around when you're not using it, just not worth it for me, especially since most of the time I'm a one-man-band. Like everyone is saying, audio is important (I live in Utah, i.e. lots of Mormons here, so I don't actually film too many ceremonies, just the happy couple coming out of the temple) but for the odd ceremony it's really not too much trouble to throw a Sennheiser g3 or something similar on the priest, and line-out record the house audio with any recorder you want for backup and you're golden. I just don't see much of a reason to over-complicate things. Weddings are easy. Pretty fun too. Good luck!

I'm shocked at how nice some of these 1dxII frames are looking. I can finally tell which lenses are sharper than others.

good advice.. i agree an assistant is a blessing, i hate doing these gigs solo.. weddings are gruesome. most important is to be quick on your feet. bodies aren't really that important, i've shot with all kinds (D750, A7S2, 5D3, C100..) but your lens selection, gimbal/monopod setup, audio etc.. is as if not more critical even then body choice..

Hi Jimmy, I've been shooting weddings for 5 years so hopefully I can help out a little. I shoot with 2 x GH4s and a mixture of fast glass (adapted and native). The GH4s do a great job and I love the small size (as I'm very sensitive to being unobtrusive). However, I would suggest, as others have, that the C100 MkII is the dream camera for weddings and events if you can afford it. I've been very close to pushing the button a number of times but I'd have to switch my lenses and get a larger Glidecam and I'm not willing to take the financial hit at present. The C100 nails lowlight, skintones, internal NDs, small file size and great audio, pretty much all the key elements to the technical side of weddings. But... I've seen people craft beautiful weddings films with pretty much every camera we discuss on these forums. You're A7sII is no slouch for this kind of work, although record times, reliability, battery life stopped me going down that route and sticking with the trusty GH4s which have never let me down. If there is a particular camera you just love shooting with, then you can make the technical limitations work. Regarding size of C100, I wouldn't worry too much about that, even in the UK. It's not too big, and I think what's most important is the way you approach the filming. Some people won't like being filmed whatever camera you use, but an apology, smile and some self-deprecating humour will usually win over even the most vehemently shy/grumpy guests. Most people are fine. I would suggest the other key area of investment is sound, especially decent lapel mics . Mic the groom for the ceremony (vicar/registrar too if they don't mind) and mic speaker for speeches individually if possible, or get them to hold a mic, or take a feed from the venue's PA system (if you are working at one specific hall then you should get this down pretty quickly!) I think killer audio from the ceremony and speeches is one of the areas that can boost your films to the next level, and the sound bytes can drive your highlights films too. A few tips off the top of my head: - Attend church/hall rehearsals where possible, good to ingratiate yourself with vicars (some have had bad experiences with photogs/video guys) and good to suss out all your angles ahead of time, and meet the close family and friends. Getting them onside can make the days so much easier. - It's invaluable for ceremony, speeches and first dance to have a wide "safety" angle set up to cut too - Editing is a real bitch when it comes to weddings, if you're like me you are going to feel that intensity to film EVERYTHING but every shot you take is going to have a knock-on effect with your editing pipeline. My footage is better when I shoot less and observe more; waiting, looking, for special angles and moments. Of course, sometimes you've just got to grab what you can given the day's timings. - Don't overcomplicate your gear. I personally find it very easy to get bogged down into lens decisions, shall I go Glidecam now, shall I get the tripod out? Ultimately, I've found my best footage comes from when I'm stuck with a single lens (usually a prime) and I'm handheld or monopod and I'm just enjoying the filming. Weddings isn't my dream work either, but wow is it a good place to learn fast, and work with footage that involves beauty, emotion and story... all key ingredients to narrative films. If you can handle weddings you can handle just about any filming environment too. Not to put you off, you'll be fine, but you have to get creative and think fast and plan ahead to get good shots in an environment you don't have control over. If I can help any further with specific questions, feel free to message me or what not.

Shoot everything at 1080p. Don't shoot yourself in the foot with 4K. Although I do like shooting ceremonies at 4K for the post crop. Canon skin tones are the best. Even a used 70d would be better than Sony IMO. The C100 mk1 and 2 are the best cameras for weddings IMO. I've shot a few recently with C100 mk1 and my 1DC and it's super nice. Here's a teaser I did with 1DC/ C100 combo: You MUST MUST MUST remember that wedding films are CONSUMER PRODUCTS. DONT EVER FORGET THIS. THIS IS 6 years of experience and over 300 weddings shot of experience talking to you. These people aren't professional filmmakers. They aren't producers. They aren't film snobs. All they want is pretty shots of them on their big day. If you shot it all with a t2i and a 50mm 1.8 they would love it because it looks "cinematic". Don't get caught up with the gear when it comes to shooting weddings. That's the biggest waste of time and money. The couples simply don't give a shit. I hope you enjoy it. Weddings are a fantastic way to get lots of experience and become a ninja shooter

Sounds like you could've been Parker Walbeck. Devin Graham's trusty shooter. Man, I'm waiting on the Instamics to ship out! https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/instamic-the-smartest-microphone-ready-to-record-video-music#/

That sounds really pleasant actually, the most stressful parts of the wedding video removed. Sign me up!

Yeh turning them to -2 (the max) funks them. -1 is OK. Nothing of interest yet. Just this short video testing out the bokeh and flaring characteristics. I am returning the WR and keeping the f1.4 btw. The clutch focus is really useful and it has a nicer skin colour rendition imo (less orange). You can underexpose and then bring up the shadows. See my earlier post http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20213-the-4k-fuji-x-t2-is-here/?do=findComment&comment=161905 Yeh the XT2 is a big step up from a D5500 in terms of video ergonomics (EVF, focus peaking) and detail (inc. 1080). Colour and tonality is a little more subjective of course. I just did some quick comparisons for you. The image quality in each 1080p mode is the same (24, 25, 29,97, 50, 59.94 fps) and the rolling shutter seems the same too. For me the main thing that lets down the system is the lack of a stabilised f2.8 16-50mm. I have emailed Metabones last week asking if they plan to make an EF adapter, but have not received any reply so far. There are also a few minor glitches with the camera here and there. Like sometimes there will appear to be lag on the screen until you half press the shutter. And sometimes when taking a photo, it takes it using the electronic shutter and with a brighter exposure than dialled in. I'm hoping Fuji sees feedback like this and makes a firmware to address these issues. If you are listening Fuji, please get in touch! Edit: Well what dya know... new firmware just came out http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xt2/index.html Sounds like it address the overexposure issue I just mentioned and also adds a LOCK function!

I'm talking about the limitations of a non-cemented doublet (achromatic) diopter (vs the single element as with these vari-diopter designs) - the single element optics of these vari-diopters is a major cause of aberrations of image at wide apertures. Having owned a FM and Core DNA, I can confirm that f4 is the stop where both focus solutions start to resolve the cleanest image on high contrast edges...especially when pushed on full frame. Sharpness 'performance' depends on your eyesight I guess. BTW - Tito's FM that he did the test with used to be mine...so I know that lens particularly well

So they can do magic with skin tones but have the worst sounding intro ever, seriously that hurt my ears! A first poster magically posts the promotion video that have 71 views and raves about customer support. Sounds legit.

I wonder if the dual cameras in a smartphone could be combined to create an anamorphic image. That's something I would love to see in a small format. Still nothing easy for DSLRs. Really a shame.

If your doing that many weddings C100 Mark 2 or FS5. I would lean towards the Canon. Light files, great image, great low light. That camera was meant to shoot weddings. FS5 has that fantastic auto ND filter and you can use a speedbooster though. Do not ever shoot without internal ND on weddings, dealing with external ND's are a pain in the ass when you have to move from indoor to outdoor quickly.

I dunno, if anything, I feel like they should get it. It's a chaotic shoot where getting the moment trumps all. Not to mention alot of it is done in horrific mixed lighting/backlit conditions that look like crap on any camera. Even the people that do high end wedding work have tons of footage that looks pretty junky compared to controlled shoots. Only so much you can do, given the conditions.

tupp is 100 percent correct. Had an older friend I invited to shoot BTS stills, he had said he had been on sets before. It must not have been many. He walked right up to the director in the middle of shooting and asked what the scene was about. He was kicked off set, I will never even mention his name to the director again. I don't talk to him anymore either, it was an important shoot day and he cost us time and my reputation took a hit. Don't screw around, don't talk to the director, do your job. Or you will never work on that crew, or any of the crews that those people work on, ever again. On film school: I echo what others have said, go to make connections for the future. Do not expect to walk out of film school and be directing features right out of the gate.

LCD stays on and touch focus remains active when using HDMI out

To be honest, I just downloaded it for free (don't want to promote piracy but I'm glad I didn't buy it) in a 2015 link and unless they re-done the LUT, it affects any color that resembles the skintones. Here's an example below. As you can see the highlights are also affected (warm +6 lut) so I still have to key the skintones if I want to change the highlights. This is 8 bit footage from G7 for anyone asking.

if anyone is wondering what Flog is looking like: crossing fingers Fuji brings this soon internally, love the film emulations but rely on flat a lot for work..

hahaha, well "slow motion bullets" is a VERY unusual exception!!

I think he should spend it on a green and yellow spinach & mozzarella. Tomatoes probably too magenta for him.

Great, thank you for sharing Last time I checked (17/11 nightly build) the 10 & 12 bit recording weren't working on the 50D but i'll try again as soon as there is another build.

DoP's certainly do run their part of the set (camera and lighting departments). And while directors have a somewhat limited role during the actual shoot days in managing the details of running the set, they certainly do play a role in the pre production phase (a very large role in lower budget productions!). And ditto Producers, they absolutely should understand more about the roles on set to make sure they're budgeting appropriately. Thus a bit of a diverse on set experience for themselves wouldn't go amiss! And so much money has been wasted and so many failures in the process too......

In a few cases, it might help (especially if one is a producer), but having practical experience in a lot of the set details can be a hindrance, as one might limit efforts to what one thinks is practical. So many great have things been accomplished by those who were completely clueless to the impracticality of a challenge. Directors/DPs/Producers should not run the set -- that's why we have ADs! The director especially should concentrate only on acting and telling the story with the camera (along with the DP). He/she shouldn't have to concern himself/herself with most of the practical details. Nice to know that a fellow alumnus is on the board! I consider it more of a professional design school rather than an art school. Most of us were pursuing a profe$$ional education when I attended.

Nope, definitely not. Only Mormons can go inside, and certainly no filming or anything like that would be allowed. For a typical Utah Mormon wedding video I film a romantic/stylized bridals session/first look thing, b-roll of the temple grounds, which are always very lovely, then the couple coming out of the temple to family cheering, hugs, etc. Then it's off to the reception for the cake/garter/bouquet/dancing and exit. And they're all just exactly like that, so sometimes it's hard to make them seem different. It's nice not to have to worry as much about the audio of all the speeches and ceremonies and more traditional wedding stuff like the rest of y'all though.

The flat profile isn't adjustable. It's reasonable in that yeah, there's wriggle room. This is still an 8 bit codec (even if the camera is more) but now that's the bottleneck. Before you also had aliasing and the crop of the sensor. I haven't tried the HDMI output either, and I imagine you could improve it a little, having a better codec. It's still an 8 Bit camera, but it's got a much nicer looking, less artefact'ed (i just made that up) image, it's in 4K, and the IS is even better again. I come from being used to working with 12 bit video. Even 10 bit is a step down for me. So for 8 bit's, if you expose it well enough in the first place, she looks really nice. I'm stuck in the middle of a series right now or else I'd have some actual real world examples to share with you. It's not as good as others, but it's a huge leap forward for Olympus, even from their already greatly improved video on the EM5 Mark II. In two models they've more or less caught up to others with comparable specs and for me, the pictures look better, until you go to 10 bit codecs. JB

I think a lot can be said for having a broad range of set experience if you're going to be a Director/DP/producer, as then it will make you a better Director/DP/producer as you'll be able to run the set better if you have a bit of an inkling of what the zillions of people under you are doing for their jobs. Plus your communication with the others on set can be a lot more effective if you can kinda talk "their own language" & translate. (i.e. understand a little bit of a camera lingo) Yes, unless you are a HoD or in some other role which makes sense talking directly to the director (such as a lead actor, or the 1st AD) then.... don't!! Nope, that is still not an exception. You should instead report the safety issue to the person above you. In extreme cases where that is ignored... you might consider going to the next person up in the chain, or similar, but you're still many steps away from the point of bringing it up directly with the director.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/05/10/nab-2016-spot-lights-on-a-budget-aputure-launch-ls-c20-led-mini-fresnel-for-199-us/ And a few Aputure LS C20 as well

IIRC it has the standard 30 minute limit?

Off Topic but while you're here, Tito, your vids are awesome, but seriously get a lav mic. The audio in your videos is awful mate.

REALLY?! hahahaha, amazing! I wish I knew that before!

"You can do 4K@60 with 4:4:4 8bit, or you can do 4K@60 with 4:2:0 10bit". It appears we are both wrong (I got my specs originally from Wikipedia). It looks like you can do 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2. From your link: Yes. HDMI 2.0 includes support for BT.2020 Colorimetry with 10 or more bits of color depth. Video Formats defined in BT.2020 and supported by HDMI 2.0 specification: – 2160p, 10/12 bits, 24/25/30Hz, RGB/4:2:2/4:4:4 – 2160p, 10/12 bits, 50/60Hz, 4:2:0/4:2:2 Since few cameras output 4:4:4, having a TV with 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2 capability with REC2020 would appear perfectly fine to monitor for editing HDR video. I would expect the forthcoming GH5 will output 4K@60 10bit 4:2:2, since the GH4 outputs 4K@30p 4:2:2 10bit.

Awhile back I spent many weeks designing variable diopter systems, including simple 2-element designs using singlets, 4-element designs with achromatic doublets, and a few complex 5 and 6 element designs. What I discovered was that the limiting aberration in every case was spherical aberration at close focus. Surprisingly, using more complex designs has very little impact on that spherical aberration, and they have numerous drawbacks including excess cost, and larger size and weight. It turns out that a simple 2-element variable diopter, such as the ones used in all of the Iscoramas is not such a bad solution at all. They give fantastic results for distant objects, and only gradually reveal weakness as you focus close. As an aside, the only thing that I found to reliably eliminate close focus spherical was to allow the elements to get very weak, but this is completely impractical because the elements get huge and the front element motion becomes BIG. BTW, it doesn't make much sense to talk about f/#'s when evaluating single focus units because absolute pupil size is what really matters. For example, you might get a terrible result when attaching the unit to a 200mm prime at f/4 because the pupil diameter is 50mm, and yet get a really nice result with a 24mm f/1.4 because the pupil diameter is only 17mm.

It's good to leave the post here, even if you answered your own question! Maybe someone will need such a solution. I use the Varavon one (not with the battery grip), which I just noticed has an extremely low price http://varavon.com/collections/hot-deal-zone/products/armor-ii-nx1-pro-cage?variant=4096862915 there is the standard version also, for less!

You sure can. I have aperture and shutter speed mapped to the two main dials. You can easily change them in shot if you need to. It was my biggest request to the development team after the EM5II. and yeah, you guys changing shutter speed to set exposure....really ??? You're prepared to draw attention to your shot by CHANGING the motion cadence ? It's poor practice, pure and simple. It's a cheat. If you have that big an exposure change then auto ISO can work well if you don't have a focus puller to change iris for you remotely. If you use iris or shutter speed to change exposure in shot, you'll see a stepping in exposure as you change. You'll find ISO changes can be more seamless. And 8 bit out on my HDMI. (though I'm still on an early build but I'm 99% sure it's going to be 8 Bit in the final release) JB

Why not just *key* the skin and color correct it? I made this an effect. With mix-slider, everything in one small window.

At least make the effort to post a minimum 100 times a few months in advance of known product promotion day. Funnily enough, Andrew's colour settings have been dissed by two different first time posters in the last 24 hours...

I shoot weddings for a good part of the year. You are right that the C100 II would be a dynamite wedding camera. It looks professional without being huge and heavy to lug around. It's got great battery life, small file sizes, good in low light, nice colours straight out of camera. I use a GH4/2 (which work decently) but I would rather the C100 if I could afford it. It and a used C100 Mk I would be a nice combo. Most of your valuable audio will be recorded off camera. I'll often use a recorder (Tascam DR-60) to take a feed off of the mixer/DJ board, and pocket recorders with lav mics on the groom and/or officiant. Usually some other recorder or mic in front of a speaker as a backup. Audio backups are key because stuff will mess up with one of your options from time to time. Weddings are the type of gigs where you will quickly learn that ergonomics, reliability and nice looking footage with minimal hassle are critical.

Modified EOS Standard Sharpness +4 Contrast -4 Color Depth -4 ISO 1600 Lighting = Back light from tv and 1 z96 LED at about half power @ about 3 1/2 feet away. I did the same shoot with CLOG and visible ghosting appeared.

Click bait would've been "$500 G7 Crushes $3500 5D IV for 4K Video!!!" Max is just doing an honest, thorough, blind test of two very different cameras to give people an objective idea of how they perform for the money. The 5D IV is better in some areas, but the G7 remains an excellent value for $447 (or whatever the Black Friday sale was).

I think anyone that is older has had some experience with the 79a' threw 79e' series Ikagami's and portable recorders. They were the thing to have until the I started using a Sony BVP-5 3CCD BetaCam Head with BVV-1A BetaCam VTR. All 550 lines of resolution! I think that thing with the big battery on it weighed like 22 pounds!! But they were pretty good at holding them steady at that weight. You had to warm up the camera for an hour or more before you could even use them to be calibrated. Man it produced a beautiful picture at the time though. The tape decks we had at the time weighed nearly 50 pounds each in the studio. We had one reporter that used to stutter at times when he got too excited, so we had to do a lot more re-takes with him. God I hated that holding that camera for what seemed like half an hour straight LoL. And he was good at running after people to get more dialog from them. That was a LOT of fun!! Wow good thing I was young, 30ish at the time. I think I have one arm longer and one leg shorter than the other because of all of that for years LoL. Wow those were the days. Man the money the stations spent was mind boggling at the the time to upgrade to that stuff. I have no clue how they could really afford it. It had to be like a 3 Million or more dollars easy. Heck each camera was over a 100k each. Studio cameras with the box Lenses were like 250k or more with the remote controls and the pedestals. And I have NO clue what the switchers cost then! Probably 250k each also. And the mobile trucks, Jesus if you had to ask, you could not afford it. Easy Million dollars each one. But the money like NBC spent in those days to cover the Olympics had to be mind boggling. It had to be a Billion dollars or more easy! NFL football was just as bad. Heck a Red camera seems cheap this day and age! Not!

There is a reason(or two) that big tvs cost much less than small computer monitors.

Jeez, North Korea looks mild in comparison!

It's click bait BS. He couldn't even match WB between the two.

As others have stated, attending film school can help in networking and in quickly learning basic filmmaking concepts. The importance of the networking advantage cannot be overstated. However, if you just started film school and if you want to get set experience by working on a third-tier level (electrician, grip, set dresser, 3rd AD, etc.) on a medium/large set, it would be wise not to let anyone know that you are a film student. Film students are notoriously lazy, presumptuous set workers, and most department heads would sooner hire an enthusiastic novice right off of the street, rather than having to contend with a "privileged" film school attendee. If you are a film student and find yourself working on set at a third-tier level, make sure that you do your specific, minor job to the best of your ability, and do not try to always be around the camera, director, DP, jib, etc. Always go through channels -- avoid talking directly to the director, DP and producer. Also, do not criticize any decisions made by the director, DP, producers nor any department heads. If you aspire to be a director, DP or senior editor (like most film students), there is something to be said for limiting your third-tier set experience, as dealing with the details of such jobs will take you away from focusing on the fundamentals of telling a story through moving pictures. Same thing goes for frequenting forums such as this one -- if you want to direct or edit, avoid spending a lot of time learning about camera feature minutiae -- don't laboriously concern yourself with trifles such as rolling shutter, IBIS, DR, CRI, etc. As a director, your main focus should be getting a performance out of the actors and effectively telling a story on film (digital).

My remarks weren't on the resolution or dynamic range. Resolution-wise BMCC wins, and dynamic range is debatable - I've said here previously that the DR of BMCC is better and I was promptly told I'm wrong. I don't care either way, both cameras have enough DR for me. Blackmagic has "cinematic" colors, but especially the color separation is very lacking and demands heavy post work to bring out full lush tones out of the image, while 5D Raw doesn't. I've had both cameras for about 2-3 years and have been shooting ML RAW and BMCC side by side since early summer now. Here's an example where both were used side by side in mixed light. Same lighting, same grade and Raw interpretation on both cameras. See how the warm tones pop on the 5D:

Well, the URSA Mini you'd probably equip with the BMD viewfinder and shoulder kit, so you're easily spending twice to really get it up to functional wishes, whereas with the GH5 you might be there with another 500 bucks, although, if you're upgrading from the GH4, chances are you probably have all them extra things that are compatible already. Can't really go and blend in very well in a crowd with the URSA Mini either, it's not that mini, so not really the harmless touristy vibe walking around with one of those. Everything's a matter of perspective, like I said, that's just mine. Well, in short: One thing that pushes Sony and Panasonic with cameras like these is to give people content for the (4K, now HDR) tv's they're trying to sell. Follow the discussion: It does either 4K60p (implied 8-bit) internally, or internal 4K30p but at 10-bit 4:2:2. I could imagine them opening up some extra external push-through... like 4K60p 10-bit and maybe even somehow RAW output... but everything is speculative at this point. But yes, it seems it has become way more useful for internal recording. But yeah, a bigger or off-camera located (rig/gimbal) screen can of course prove very useful. SmallHD make some brilliant little monitors. Of course there's Atomos, Convergent Design Odyssey and Videodevices too that do include more advanced features as pro recorders and monitors, some including anamorphic de-squeeze and LUT preview support, stuff you wouldn't get with your Aputure VS-5 or Lilliput Q5. The GH4 wasn't able to de-squeeze in-camera, according Matt Frazer in the following video because the camera wasn't initially intended to do so. That's why I'm pumped to see what the GH5 can do, because it is from the ground up developped for these kinds of applications now, whereas the features on the GH4, including V-LOG L were more like bonus experimental features. I think you could pick to either push it through HDMI already de-squeezed for monitoring or deliver it untouched to let your monitor/recorder de-squeeze/record the 'pure' signal. Especially check from 33:30:

I once went to Stockholm in person to pick up the Panasonic G7 and saved me 230 or so bucks (had to be there anyways, but still, http://www.prisjakt.nu proved helpful). I ordered the G80 from UK and for EU body prices got included the 12-60mm, a Panasonic 64GB card and a battery grip. It does help to look around. Usually I check http://geizhals.eu . I find it very helpful to get some oversight. That said... 1999 for either E-M1 Mark II or GH5 is a matter of perspective. So here's mine... No DSLR for me. I don't like mirrors and I don't like optical viewfinder. I'd rather just have an EVF and excellent liveview; what you see is what you get. Plus, mirrorless cameras just about standard give you peaking, zebras and all that good stuff No fullframe camera for me. What fullframe cameras would there be? Let's see... eh... Sony. Well have you seen what those bodies retail for? And then you need big bulky 35mm covering glass that ain't cheap either. Don't know. Just not for me S35/APS-C. Now we're talking. Excellent. Yes, I'll have one, thank you! What can I choose from again? Ah, more Sony. Well... they sound good on paper, but in practice... between the overheating, rolling shutter, color issues, poor design and its price... there's not really that much that makes it an attractive choice. I think I'll pass until they come up with something a little more reliable and enjoyable. Fujifilm XT-2. Ooh, me likey. Too bad there's no sensor stabilization, vari-angle touchscreen and headphone-jack on the camera body. Tough. Canon? The new EOS-M5... overpriced stripped down 80D much? Maybe cool as a gimbal AF tool, otherwise nope. Nikon? Not making anything. Samsung? Dead; although the NX1 is pretty sweet. But you know... the XT-2 would pull ahead of it. Well... that's kinda that. Unless you want to go proper cinema style camera and throw a couple of thousand bucks at it, but at the cost of losing a innocent looking versatile hybrid system that packs a punch That leaves... drumroll please! Micro Four Thirds, MFT, M43, M4/3. Now... I kinda made my peace with the 4/3" sensor a long time ago. Hell, some even accepted the limited conditions the BMPCC would shine in. S16. And as such I don't need ISO12800. I mean, ISO1600-6400 would be kinda nice. Don't really like to go beyond ISO1250 right now due to the decrease in peformance. But somehow, you just make it work. You work around the sensitivity by lighting, by using more sensitive lenses. You work around the crop. The shallow depth of field. With a smaller sensor you kinda lose some color accuracy, dynamic range... I mean, it's not like you're not paying for it somehow, but you manage. In return you get to have one of the most versatile systems out there. With small bodies and small pancake primes. But you can also rig things up and use speedboosters. And especially with the features in the new E-M1 Mark II (which I feel they should've just called a E-M1 Pro/E-M Pro to avoid the negative backslash it being so much more expensive than its predecessor), you now have one of the most complete cameras on the market out there. Compared to a mirrorless APS-C Sony... it has a far better choice concerning lenses native to the system and sensor format, it has that vari-angle screen, dual cardslot, superior sensor stabilization, neglectable rolling shutter... and most importantly... it's reliable. Compared to either XT-2 or NX1 it has the vari-angle touchscreen (frontfacing option) and 5-axis sensor stabilization. You just can't really fault the E-M1 Mark II on hardware level. The GH5... we don't know much yet, but it looks like we're going to keep that GH4-styling. That's good and bad, because I was actually hoping that with the GH5 they would really re-think what they wanted the top of the line GH-camera to be for general video production, as well as more advanced cinematic application. So I was thinking a different style body, more room, better interface, more ports, bigger ports and all that good stuff. Still though, even with a GH4-style body and souped up internals, this could be something very different. We already kinda know that its sensor and processing allows for internal 4K at 60/50p and 4:2:2 10-bit at 30/25/24p. There's 6K Photo. If the E-M1 Mark II's processing and speed is any indication of what the GH5 might be like, we're really getting some performance. And people who've been using the GH4 as a production tool, will gladly embrace the improvements in noise control and overal image quality that has already gotten a boost with the arrival of the G7, GX80 and G80. Not to mention the probable inclusion of sensor stabilization. Rolling shutter could be neglegible as well. Super slowmo. Who knows? Ultimately though, this is a tool not to be underestimated and of great value to independent and indie filmmakers, production houses and the sorts. Would I say 1999 is pricey? Yes, most definitely is. But I think the E-M1 Mark II makes sense. There's all this Olympus PRO glass and these people need a camera to go with it. It's not some incremental upgrade, it's a new game altogether and offers things in a complete package we haven't seen yet before. To those who think it's not worth it, they have a great selection of alternatives... the E-M1 with firmware upgrade is pretty solid, E-M5 Mark II, E-M10 Mark II... Panasonic G80. Talking about that last one, that is a fine camera for people looking for a serious hybrid camera that don't neccessarily be using the more pro applications such as V-LOG L. Pay less, only use what you need. The GH5 on the other hand is the ultimate video production tool, by the looks of it. Either used stand alone or rigged up, if it sells for 1999 it will provide shooters with a the most complete video package under 2000 bucks yet. If they would tell me 'we have a promo going on, one time offer... we see you have the GH5 in your basket, we'll change that to a URSA Mini 4K (that you're not allowed to sell) but leave the 1999 price. Which camera should we ship to you?'. I'd probably go with the GH5. I just really like the idea of a camera that I could use with a 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens and at the same time could rig up to be a set-up too legit to quit. But that's just me. You also got to consider that because of the pro features, less people will have use for it... and in turn therefor they sell less units and need to increase prices. As has been said before, we're just a marginal piece of the pie... the people that care a lot about shooting video with stills cameras, so when they cater to us, I'm really excited. And currently I see the E-M1 Mark II and the GH5 as the most complete packages out there for hybrid shooting with a video edge. There's always things that can be improved, but that's going to remain to be the case.

Hey, has anyone here actually flown to another country to get a camera and take a free vacation? Some of the US/ EU price differences are the price of a transatlantic flight...

So still no working 7D build as I understand it?

For what it's worth. I have both a R.J.Camera and a metabones bmpcc speedbooster. Tested both on my GH4 with the nikon 25-50 f4. As both have different cropfactors I had to scale the R.J.camera a small 10 %. Adjusted the colors a bit (more green in the meta) ...and I have to say, to me the R.J. doesn't look worse. Metabones_vs_JRcamera.tif JRcamera_vs_Metabones.tif