sugartown

Every camera should have that option. I do think having something hard wired has benefits though.

I'd say this is the first actual Cinema Camera they've introduced. No idea why the shape is looking futuristic to people - it looks like a film camera, or a tube video camera. It's a classical design for a reason. I'd love to think there have been innovations, but based on the ridiculous rigs out there, there haven't been. Personally, I'd love something the size of my Iphone with the operation cababilities of these larger, professional market cameras, but they don't exist. Nor do they exist in a DLSR or any other smaller camera. If the sensor is there, or the ergonomics are there, something else major is missing. The inability to measure how much record time you have left is one example of a flaw I can't work around. Menus buried or only being able to adjust one function at a time (exposure? audio?) are dealbreakers. I love that so many of you can juggle these limitations ....but I personally can't. The limitations stifle me. They probably stifle a lot of you more than you realize. I also can't afford to buy 4 backup cameras a year. My shoots involve other people. Impatient people that get bored really easily and could care less about technology. And I can't afford to rent an Alexa, or the tech to go with it. So I think you guys are very mistaken about who they're marketing to. I think there are lot of people like me who have either outgrown, or just can't get past the shortcomings of using a 5d, GH4, BMCC for creating long form content, not to mention general purpose shooting. Let's be honest. These cameras really aren't competing. Blackmagic didn't do what they set out to do, so this is a Hail Mary. Most indie stuff getting distributed is made with a crew, and used the top tier cameras. Considering how good the image of a $5,000 camera is, that's a remarkable, sobering truth.

Right, but I'm not following the signifigance in that. The Bolex market was mostly film schools by then. Was it really popular though? It was out of reach for most filmmakers, and a fantasy format, considered a headache by a lot of those who used it. Most wished they could just shoot 35mm instead.

Well. You could modify just about any camera if you really wanted to, but Bolex H16 (created in the 30's) predates Super 16 (late 60's for cameras) though. It's more common to modify an Arri sync camera instead. There's a difference between it being a professional indie favored format, and the days of processing in your bathtub. Labs, upright/flatbed editors, projectors, take up reels, all had to be modified too. The Hawk lens you're talking about wasn't released until the very late 90's, if I recall?

Someone else beat me to the history lesson but I did want to add, Super8 was introduced for the sound strip. The handheld 16mm cameras were available for war time documentary newsreel work, much earlier than the 60's. They would shoot, and print film for local news broadcasts until the 70's. Bolex wasn't Super 16mm, just 16mm. Super 16mm was a delivery format, created for anamorphic blowups to 35mm, for theatrical distribution. Documentaries rarely shot this. The intermediate work prints, and final blow ups were Super expensive. The lab and post costs and other complications, rivaled 35mm, but the production handling allowed for more stripped down crews. It wasn't a low budget accesible format, shooting Super 16 meant your production was pretty involved. You didn't shoot it unless you knew you were doing a costly blowup to 35mm. DP's also pushed for it, because they had invested a lot in the equipment, as the so called future. There was a point where going to video and posting in Avid/Media Composer made it practical, but DV was already introduced by then. Beta, Beta SP, and even Hi8 were more likely to get used than Super16.

"Meanwhile, I moved on from ENG cameras to Canon DSLRs and finally Panasonics."   Not entirely buying this. The dream camera for anyone shooting documentary, broadcast, or events is essentially a lighter smaller ENG camera with the adaptability and guts of the cameras reviewed here. You would still want a low profile camera in your arsenal, but the current crop of cameras come with drastic limitations. It's only a good trade off if the image delivers above their pay grade. The only people I know shooting RAW for documentary have million dollar budgets, and dedicated techs to deal with the headaches.    As for the GH3, flipping through on screen menus and an inability to control what you want in an instant is something you get used to but it's not an ideal. The lack of a real archiving system is not an ideal. You mentioned the GH3 for single system audio, but are you really going to pretend the GH3 is set up to record pro level audio? It takes great reference and backup sound though. The footage looks decent compressed, but again there are limitations. When you shoot unplanned content, you need a camera that is always flexible and doesn't get in the way.   As for logging, you should be logging real time. Otherwise you're not logging. That's what logging is. It's not simply finding in/out points, or  organizing wide shots from close ups.         

  I think my stance is that if the GH3 is now considered a convenient pro workflow, something is wrong. Nor is it a good run and gun camera. It's lousy in documentary situations.  GH3 footage is so hit or miss I think half the battle are the conditions you shoot in, and less to do with the operator/magician at this point.   You can shoot beautiful video with a cell phone given the right circumstances, so I'm not putting down the ability of GH3 users to create work so nice few people can discern or care what it was shot on, but let's be honest, the workflow is far from ideal, and requires transcoding to a flimsy format.   Ultimately, if you put interesting action in front of any of these cameras, in optimal lighting conditions, they will get decent images. Add action, sound, shifting light, limited practicals on set, and really all the conditions that make up a real shooting situation, where you're shooting scripted or goal oriented documentation - and that's another story. Give yourself a deadline to complete the work, and that's really another story.   I do agree with you about comparing some more non-RAW based cameras, like the Nikon. I'm very interested in seeing more of thee cameras you mentioned. 

  None of the work flows we're talking about are acceptable for a Broadcast News shooting camera. For what you're doing, behind the scenes, short clips for web content PR kind of stuff, any camera will do.

I found this informative, yet frustrating.    Even if I take to one camera's still image, and decide it has cinematic qualities (5D III Raw wins by a landslide to my eyes),  the limitations of each camera are crippling for most practical and professional settings, and if the GH3 is supposed to lead the bunch for handling/features, that's pretty shameful. More power to those who can get around overheating cameras, record limits, or plastic mini bodies stripped of basic camcorder features.   

I really appreciated this review. A couple questions though: How is the audio? I imagine thes things about the size of 3 Iphones glued together, so the idea of a pocket camera that needs a pocket recorder or a big giants breakout box, with conversion jacks all tethered together, strikes me as beyond awkward. How is the handling without the weight? Can you make adustments on the fly and keep the camera steady?

    In theory. We all want to believe this is true. A lot of deserving films never find an audience.

The truth? Good films end up shelved ALL THE TIME.   Great films often get lost in the system.    Brilliant ideas often never get funded. The best scripts, the ones that get passed around back and forth -RARELY- get greenlights.   About 15 years ago, there was a round table with Francis Ford, Spike Lee, Scorcese, Spielberg and others, and they ALL confessed they struggled to get their next film made.    Wait, it gets better....   The days of a Tarantino or Rodiriguez getting through the door and blowing up are slim to none. Even during the heyday of 90's indie cinema, only a few got past the gatekeepers...because even on a low indie level, there are gatekeepers.   There are only a hand full of sales reps, and only a couple dozen distributors who have handled projects you've heard of. The festivals are set up like getting into Harvard Law....some are there on merit, but most on pedigree and association.   Think the internet is the great equalizer? It is. But it's also a slush pile of camera tests, and garbage that few people can wade through.   Which means a guy like Spielberg who was big man on campus, and owned his own campus feels the heat of a more democratizing process, and studios reacting by only producing sure thing major blockbusters with toy and product tie ins, so they can make back their marketing budgets. (Even Django had action figures).   All the while, indie films take even less economical risks, less creative risks, and the gatekeeping requires you the filmmaker to be the Prom King/Queen or the captain of the football team to get through that system. It means the big festivals have already selected films connected with a hand full of known industry people, before the submission deadlines. It means more than half the films a Sundance are repped by one man. It means distributors are offering award winning films deals in the 50k range, before you pay out E&O insurance, and differed costs. It also means distributors are making offers of 5K for a feature film, for world rights, and doing it with a straight face.   This is the reality we're up against. Creative filmmaking is not as important to getting your film seen as creative salemanship, and business. This is what we're all up against. 

Really appreciate this roundup.    Regarding the RAW workflows, or even Davinci software....what's the current low end entry point for a Mac portable?   As I understand it, there's a Macbook revamp coming next month, and I'm aware of the Hackintosh but that's too much in the way of hacked products for me. Likewise, I'm not interested in buying a cheap ancient desktop then going upgrade crazy.  Is anyone here working with RAW files on an off the shelf Macbook? 

I too noticed some strangeness, but wondered if it was just the Vimeo. Focal points and sharpness are a mixed bag of wonderful, and wrong, not to mention confusing to the eye. Really interested to see where this goes though.

  I think they just mean shooting it a lot for their own personal use, not formal tests, and just waiting until they know it like the back of their hand before using it on the clients dime.   If you're with a budget to afford a better camera out of the box, there's no reason to use this unless it gives you some superior function/form. If you have access to your own gear, it is empowering.