halfmac

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.   http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2013/08/11/21st-century-camera/

It was dead before it got started.  Just a gimmick.  Helps stop foreign bootlegging.  Makes screen darker.

The most important thing for me in cinema is the story.  If the filmmaking gets in the way like 48fps, then the story is secondary.  I do not like these newer TV's with the higher refresh rate.  Makes everything look live.  I don't want to go to the cinema to watch TV.  The cool thing about the cinema is the suspension of belief.  Making a Fantasy Video just does not cut it.  I would rather see a Fantasy Film.

I agree with some of Andrew's points but not others.  Here is my take:  http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2012/05/20/this-changes-everything/

I really like my older lenses.  But for our technical quality the native m43 lenses are better.  But for a less clinical look I totally agree with this article.  Here is my take on old lenses.  http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2012/05/06/using-legacy-lenses-on-the-gh2/

>:( I have not liked the new LCD Tvs that have the higher frame rates.  They make Avatar look like a Soap Opera.  Yuck! I am not surprised by this post.  [b]3D is a gimmick. [/b] 48 frames is a gimmick.  When I first heard about the Hobbit using 48fps, I was hoping it would be projected at 24 in some theatres so I could see it.  I will not watch it at 48fps.  I saw Doug Trumbull's ShowScan (which had a 60fps) and it looked like 'Live Film'.  It was not good for dramatic motion pictures.  Neither is this. I remember a time when we were all trying to make our 60fps video look like film.  The only way to do it was reduce the frame rate to 24p.  Those new cameras were the rage.  Even at 30p they looked better.  Now you have Peter Jackson going the other way because of a gimmick, 3D.  They is no replacing of good story telling.  And 24p does this. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

The sensor size is smaller than 4/3rds cameras.  Why not 4/3rds lenses.  A lot more optics would be available than expensive EF glass. Built in battery working for an hour and a half with a two hour recharge?  Not!  Come on guys.  SDI and not HDMI for more expensive monitoring.  Needs a viewfinder.