noa

this site has become nothing more then a cheap tabloid magazine, way to go...

​Ray Roman charges 9K + for a wedding and still prefers to shoot with a soft looking 5DIII and his main camera, a 1Dc and he still shoots everything in 1080p, he had a c300 but didn't like to use it and returned it, for wedding work the c300II is overkill, even for very high end ones.

No-one has even shot anything with the camera but you already know the IQ it's going to be better then "a" Alexa?

I only shoot the 25mm on a monopod and even then a few of my shots need post stabilisation, it should be possible to make a stabilized 25mm prime when they can do it on a 12-35mm, no?

End of this month the relatively cheap Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm f/1.7 will come out which is stabilized, we can all wish for something that is not there and might never come and work with what is available now. If you want more stabilized primes you need to get a EM5 II

​This particular video has nothing to do with weddings, it's a preplanned production set, everything you see in that film is staged, you can make any camera look good in such a situation. Don't know if you ever have shot a wedding, their is no-one that says "action!" , there are no second takes and if you have to shoot from inside a venue directly into the sunlight during a ceremony that's just bad luck.

I have shot 6400 iso on the gh4 in 4k and it looks fine when downscaled into a 1080p project, that's why low light is not a issue for those camera's, ofcourse a c100 or a7s will shoot cleaner and can go higher in iso but why would you, if I can show a candlelit venue the way I can see it with my eyes when using a gh4 I don't need a a7s to turn night into day, I just need to show it like it was and then 3200 iso and a f2.0 lens are already sufficient. Also remember, we are not talking high end commercial productions here for corporations, these weddingsfilms are for regular people that can't tell the difference between a image from a sony a6000 and a canon 1dc, as long as you manage to get the content right and have sufficient skill and talent to use your camera's at their best and edit it into a compelling piece then the gear doesn't matter. Almost all current camera offerings below 1500 dollar are suitable camera's to cover weddings, even high end, with.

​Nice looking trailer btw, are most of those shots done with the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8? Can I ask how you manage to keep your shots so stable with that lens?

I don't think you need to prove m4/3 are not capable of shooting weddings, those who have used them and those that do weddings know what they are capable off. One thing to consider is that the 2 panasonic bodies and 4 lenses I mentioned are together the same price as a c100 body alone so cost is also a important factor. Ofcourse overall a c100 is a superior camera but it will not make you any more money, it will only cost you more. Fact remains that having wide and fast lenses is a problem with m4/3, you can work with a speedbooster but you will loose the fast and accurate autofocussing on native m4/3 lenses. I find the 12mm f2.0 just wide enough for my use but I would have preferred a bit wider, the quite brutal crop of the gh4 in 4K doens't help much but I would hate loosing the autofcous for quickly locking in focus before I start to shoot.

You can shoot weddings with m4/3 camera's without a problem, even candle lit ones. They are also much easier to maintain focus which is one of the biggest challenges when shooting with a full frame camera. I use a gh3 and a gh4 with a set of fast primes like the 12mm f2.0, 25mm f1.4,75mm f1.8 and for run and gun a 12-35 f2.8. All very small, light camera/lenses with a very good performance. For longer continuous recording I prefer to use videocamera's like a ax100.

​ ​and me too

​I think the only reason these kind of articles are posted is to get attention to this blog and to get people to sign up that are not even that passionate about filmmaking, and when it gets too hot to just lock the thread and start a new attention seeking one. Ah well, the sun is shining now and I feel my time is much better spend going out now with my camera and create something.

​Which Sony camera are you referring to? The only camera I know in Sony's range that has a stabilization not matched by any other camera, except the em5, is their small handicam cx line which is now being replaced by the ax33, I have a cx730 with the "magic eyeball", the stabilization on that thing is exceptionally good and from what I have seen so far from the EM5 II it's equally good. The only major difference being that the Sony doesn't have the ability to fit on fast primes.

So you have been insulting the guy about halfway through this tread and now you are asking him if he could do another test for you? He said he returned the camera so it would not be possible anyway. But why are you so interested how the EM5 II performs, you said you would not buy the camera? In my case I would understand as I might get it and want to know what shortcoming I will have to deal with. From what I have seen in Fuzzynormals latest video the videoquality is sufficient for my needs, the only thing I worry about is functionality while shooting in rapidly changing environments, like changing light conditions, right now it looks cumbersome having to change the iso or f-stop quickly. It's mainly the IBIS I want and not for walking around like so many have been doing in their test videos, as I see it that is not the main purpose of the IBIS system as it's not a steadicam replacement, but to get tripod like shots handholding a unstabilized 75mm lens and just leaving my monopod in the car and shoot exactly like a photog would with 2 camera's hanging with a strap around my neck.

​But what is "big", is it worse then what a canon 550d did produce? I didn't notice any moire in your film, so it can't be "that" bad?

I just have been looking at your footage in Edius true my hd spark card on a big led screen and if I understand Andrew right this camera produces quality that is "mediocre bordering on crap"? From a normal viewing distance this footage looked just as good as what my gh3 would produce, There is nothing that made me think "it's soft" or "it looks like crap", on the contrary, I found it looked great, overall it looked too "reddish" to me but nothing that was not easily fixed with some simple colorcorrection.

That looked great, thx for sharing

Yes, but even the slightest movement, no matter how small, can result in moire that could be distracting enough to lead the viewers eye away from what you are actually trying to show. I consider myself a moire hiding specialist having to deal with that for years, first on my 550d and later on my nex-ea50.

I would, I just would use a tripod and make a static shot, that will work fine, sure any pixel peepers will notice that those parts, like very small roof tiles don't have any real detail in them but at least you won't get any dancing lines across your screen when you pan. You can be sure that any person, that is not a enthusiastic videographer, will ever notice this "problem", it's only us videonerds that see the artifacts.

You shot in a sunny environment and since you locked the shutter to 1/50 and didn't use a nd filter that can mean the camera will close down the iris completely which is causing diffraction meaning a soft image, it's a common mistake made by many who afterwards wonder why their image looks so soft on their camera. Just saying. If you shoot with the same settings as before I"m sure Bob will hit you with a stick again.

Yeah, I do agree Bob is not the most diplomatic person around Can I also ask what your f-stop on both camera's was set to because that might also impact the image if it was set on auto.

I have the same issue with my rx10, it doesn't look bad until I try to mix the images from this camera with my gh3 and then yellowish red skintones are just too different, even after whitebalancing properly.

There is nothing wrong with the camera, your latest video did prove that, I have become used to working around a camera limitation, the only point of argument for me was that when you post a comparison video it's best to do it right in order to avoid confusion because what it says to me know is that it's looks better then a GH2 while many claim it's just the opposite. If it would be better then a GH2 I would know for sure it would match my gh3, there is too much conflicting information right now that makes buying the camera a risk. ​I at least try and I don't need a large camera to do so, here's one of my latest films that I do just for the fun of it, shot with a gopro on a mini 3 axis gimbal and a few static shots with a gh4. I"m addicted to stable shots which is why the em5 looks so appealing to me. I probably would not have shot at that location with the EM5 II as I think the fine detail would have been a real challenge for that camera.

Like I said, I appreciate you taking the time to put this online but I can't take it seriously because the camera's where partially set to auto mode. What's even more weird is that you managed to make the gh2 look worse so I don't know what was going on there.

I have shot with a 550d in the past and the moire on that one could be pretty bad, maybe even worse then the 5DII, shooting with fast lenses wide open to blur out the background incase I had some fine textures like small bricks in the background did help as well though there have been times when shots, especially wide deep dof shots looked unusable. But from what I have seen in Gordon Laing's video, this one in particular: (vimeo.com/119316833) I would be certain that the same shot with a 550d the moire would have looked much worse.