Chris Santucci

Not really. The user buttons on the smaller GH4 are much easier to depress accidentally than with 5D, especially with the thumb while normally gripping the camera.

It's set to 3200 ISO and with lens wide open. Maybe he should try a laser next :-p

Because it's completely normal to achieve clipped highlight level X a thousand percent. Yep.

I'd rather have the better color and 10 bit color depth. Sony color and skintones especially are less accurate. But if you need to shoot in the dark, Sony is great.

A solution...

Impressive on paper, but I see no skintones in the demo.

I did a lens comparison a while back between Leica R, Zeiss ZE Primes, Canon L series primes, and 60's/70's era Nikkor primes and there was no difference to my eye between any of them except for a slightly wider dynamic range with Leica. All other optical aspects like sharpness and color were visually identical. That's a pretty wide range in years and lens cost and I would suggest that even the top cinema prime is no more than maybe 5% better optically than any of these I tested.

Still waiting for my lens...

Interesting... What does this file look like to you? Are the grays neutral? '>

I never touched saturation just so you know. All I did was remove all that GREEN and add a tad bit of blackness. ALL the still frames associated with this post look excessively green (and a bit flat) to me. When I download the doggy image and open it in photoshop, the big reflected highlight under the Beagle shows a pronounced amount of green. And I keep my 32 bit monitor calibrated and do all my (considerable amount of) grading on it.

No offense to the authors, but these still frames are horrendous from the standpoint of color. "Stunning results?" Really? Here, I fixed the dog image for ya:

Still waiting for my dog shit lens <_<

Funny how *sharpness* elicits oohs and aahs from certain people who then put 40 or 50 year old (sometimes uncoated) lenses on these cameras. Nobody wants to see ultra sharp footage of people's faces, especially when the skin tones are produced by a GH series camera.

Wow, people are still whining about stills cameras that have added video functions? And an 800 dollar model at that!?!?! What's next? A scathing critique of a Flip UltraHD camera?

How is all this 4K going to be delivered? Mostly on tablets and smart phones, right? And laptops? And 20 something inch monitors?

Facepalm award goes to JVC this year.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Photoshop indicates the raw file is 8 bit, but I opened it in another program and it indicates it's actually 14 bit.

As of today, I have a MK3 that records raw as far as I can tell. Photoshop indicates the DNG files are 8bit, but they sure don't act like 8bit image files. Anyone else seeing this?

    What does the size of the company have to do with anything? Are they manufacturing and assembling the things themselves?   At the $7.5 and $15K prices, this is a rental item for most people. As mentioned, those who could afford to buy this, could afford to hire Steadicam or Technocrane, and this then becomes a specialty item for use in creating only select shots (and hence - rental item).   The big issue is, this thing is only really functional with a lightweight camera and lens which rules out digital cinema camera.   And what of remote follow focus? Video transmitter? Cine lens? All adding weight which then makes any form of long term operation difficult.

This changes everything. People will be shooting awesome films, getting into Sundance, and getting 3 picture deals left and right.

Meh.   Anyone can still buy the amazing and affordable Canon T series and MKIII and whatever else.   If you can't afford cine grade gear, then you can't afford it. Does Canon somehow owe all those who decided to shoot films on the MKII and 7D?    I don't think so. Are they supposed to sell cine grade gear at a loss? I briefly considered the C500, and then realized the Scarlet-X was a far better deal and Red a far better camera company.  I love the MKII and shoot commercial work on it every week, but I won't touch Canon's cine gear in part because I don't need it and because I can't afford it. I'd rather upgrade to the Dragon sensor Epic when the time comes for what? 20 grand?  Sorry, but there's no point to a plastic C500 for almost $30K (including the external recording device) when the new Epic will record about (or almost) 20 stops of range at 5K with ALL that color depth - in camera, for about the same amount of dough or less.

Comparing two cameras that have a $10K price difference? OK...

You can't compare the ludicrousness of a 2.3 crop factor with the C300. Sorry, you just can't.

Bow to the flare.

Oh look, it's [i]another[/i] anamorphic lens test!