noa

​You said before that the 1D C with so many missing video features make it a pain to use while the A7S is much better. Does this mean you are changing your mind then? When you made your 1dc vs a7s list I believe it was only based on specifications, not on real life use, unless you allready had the a7s back then, it only shows that specification don't say much until you start using it in the field. I guess you need to be updating your 25 point list article soon. An interesting article on user experience is from stillmotion where canon was so nice to lend them the prototype 1DC to shoot a commercial: http://stillmotionblog.com/canon-1dc/

​It depends, I shoot a lot in 4k @ 3200 iso on my gh4 at dark evening receptions at weddings and when downscaled to 1080p it looks just fine to me as the grain gets smaller as well during that downscaling, I even shoot at 6400 iso when needed without having to use neatvideo, there is fine grain then but again it's nearly not as noticeable as 3200 iso was on my first dslr, the 550d which looked pretty awefull.

​Anyone that has watched the video with sound doesn't need to ask because maxotics explains which light sources where used. edit: some weird stuff going on when I post, I get quotes in my comments section that I didn't select and unable to remove.

I never liked any of Seth Rogen's films, I never found them funny at all, each time I wonder why I look at another one, maybe hoping it would be better. The interview was again no exception. Just watched it and the pee or poo conversation in the limo says it all.

If you are smart I'd delete all non relevant comments including some very offensive ones while you are at it, they only create noise for other people to wade through and some remind me of a youtube commenters mentality.

​Just stop posting, that should do it and then start your own, more userfriendly, forum. If you have anything interesting to say I'd be your first member

Even at 5K (gbp) this is hardly a camera anyone would buy that doesn't have a business making enough money to justify it's cost. As a business owner getting a new fs7 would be a much better investment for just a bit more and you can write off the tax. It might not take pretty pictures but you'd have a production ready camera. I also never would buy second hand gear for that amount of cash because you don't get any warranty, if something would malfunction repaircost could be a nice surprise as well. I"m also not surprised why the 1dc starts to show up at half the new price, any photoprofessionals I have worked with all work with 5dIII and they often either have a second mark3 or a mark2 as b-cam and videoprofessional rather invest in canon's c-line. Anyone doing professional work and one who needs a 1dc for either photo or video buy's it new, they have to sell it at least with a 50% loss when they replace the camera's because they know no other professional will buy it second hand if it's only 20 to 30% cheaper and no amateur has that amount of cash to spare, they have to go a lot cheaper just to get rid of it, then it might become interesting for a pro who just needs a b-cam backup or a enthusiast amateur but I"m sure there are not many that are willing to cough up 5K GBP for a second hand camera, not if there are alternatives for a lot less money. Ofcourse if you buy this camera just for the sake of putting other camera's up against it you can inform your readers better about the real value of other, much cheaper camera's. You might even be able to add a 26th point to your list of why the a7s/shogun is a better option then the 1dc.

I also find it strange that the colors from your a6000 are so far off, I have edited some a6000 footage recently (not my camera) and found the colors where very pleasing with accurate looking skintones and not as flat as in your example. It had a very distinct dslr look to it with balanced colors, might be a certain preset that was used or a specific lens, don't know as I don't own the camera.

Right from the start of your video the skintones on the gh4 look much better then the a6000, it's the a6000 that gave a weird looking washed out color and once you start colorcorrecting it's starts to look even worse but that's just my opinion.

​From what I have seen reported by other users the lx100 has a cleaner image at 3200 iso compared to the Gh4 and the IQ is equally good, I did find it surprising when it's stated that this camera is "unusable in low light for any kind of semi professional work". That also would apply then for the GH4. Just like the GH4 the LX100 has picture settings that when used wrong can have a effect on the image, this little camera can easily be used in a semi-professional environment as long as you don't have clients that would object against the size of the camera. Low light is also no issue unless you want to shoot at moonlight but for that there are other camera's.

I was never that good at math but how do you end up at 3,3 euro per day on a 1dc vs 5 euro per day on a camera that costs 2,3 times less, even with the loss you make after a resell that doesn't make much sense. ​You can look at it from another angle, spend 4,2k on a a7s and shogun recorder and spend 6,8k on lenses and other gear up to the price point of a 1dc body only, from a business perspective that is a much better investement, the same rules apply for your tax write offs as you spend the same amount of money yet you have a full production ready camera vs a camerabody only.

A gh4 body would be the cheapest since you allready have an investment in m4/3 lenses, why are you not considering that camera?

So you plan on making a 2K+ purchase based on some comments you get in a few hours time on a forum? If I had to spend that amount of money I"d read up as much as I could on any camera that would interest me, then I would sum up what is important for me and I what I would expect from a camera and make a checklist, any camera that would tick the most checkboxes and especially the ones marks as most important gets bought.

What camera are you going to use to shoot this? Sony has it's own 50mbs 4K codec on the ax100 or twice that on the gh4. It's not that these codecs require that much space and harddrive space is cheap these days. I would shoot in 4K and deliver in 720p or 1080p depending on the client's expectations but you would future proof your work if you also keep a 4K master aside, when your client would demand 4K you don't need to upscale 1080p but just deliver the highest quality. If you have a camera that can do 4K I don't see a reason why to shoot 1080p unless you need 50p and your camera doesn't support it.

The owner of the video commented on vimeo that he used the gh3 and gopro for this film.

He used a GH3 and a gopro 3 :)

I don't agree with that, It takes years to become a good cameraman, it takes just days/weeks to learn to use filmconvert and it takes a day to buy any gear you like.

If Rembrandt could have made a video how he made his paintings and tell you what paint brushes to use it doesn't mean any beginner can just copy his work, there is still something called talent and that is something you can't teach.

Been following this blog for some time and also have seen the site owner being very rude towards some posters which ofcourse sets the tone for others to follow, you can't expect people to take you seriously then if you ask for "good attitude towards other members" :) Closing the forum and only allowing a handful of good proven users to contribute will also close the doors for any new users that might be providing any useful information, you might have contributors providing wrong information, but ofcourse no-one to contradict as you would rely solely on the knowledge of who you allow to speak up. I also think that the people you choose that will be able to contribute won't necessarily be the ones that provide the most useful information but the ones that don't disagree with you, it would be much better having other people help to moderate but be careful with moderation, I"d only delete content that has no added value, like personal attacks, but I'd leave every personal opinion in here, even if it's not your own. I think Bruno summarized it best with

Not sure this is the right place for your question, this is more of a "gear geek" blog then it is a "film makers" blog, just look at the screening room where actual work from aspiring filmmakers is put on display yet there is hardly any interaction going on, yet camera features are discussed to death. Looking at your avatar and seeing you want to know which camera would be right for a consumer wanting to shoot running children this makes you a family man. This also puts you in a "family market" category or like the owner of this blog referred to as "these f***ing people that shoot shitty home movies" in this same topic, so I don't think you would have to expect any advice from him and possibly from most other members here. Like the owner also clearly stated: Get a clue! ;)

So I guess you won't be participating :)

Here is one that shows the difference:

Lots of goodies to win, finally a chance to put that gear you all like to talk about to good use :) It appears you even get the PluralEyes audio synchronization software, valued at $199 for free just for entering during March. Also see www.myrodereel.com

It mostly comes down to budget, I rather invest in quality glass and just replace the camerabody every 3 years, my lenses will outlast my camera's by many years. It's a fact that canon camera's/lenses are much more expensive then what Panasonic offers, if you have the money to burn, then sure go for the best and most expensive but I can shoot quality footage with panasonic as well for a lot less money and still be able to charge the same amount I would when I would have a c100/300.

Around these parts a c100 is 6 times the prize of a gh3 and the c300 15 times the price. They are better camera's to use overall but when you do weddings the pricedifference is not easy to justify as they do not provide 6 to 15 times better image, if you mainly would do corporate shoots then such a camera could be a requirement. The reason why dslr's are so popular is because of their low price and look they can provide that a small sensor videocamera, even if it's it's much easier to use, is not capable off. The c- line from canon is overpriced for what you get, then panasonic has definitely set the bar on price/performance for their new gh4, that one would also be my next weapon of choice.