Inazuma

Oh I see. Well in that case what are the benefits gained from higher bit depths and 4:2:2 etc compared to a normal h264 8bit recording? Also. Off topic, but I am about to convert hours of AVCHD .MTS footage from my GX7 in to h264 MP4's because I heard that editing programs (such as Premiere Pro) work faster with MP4. Is this true or am I about to waste hours of time rendering?

I understand that footage recorded in 10bit 4:2:2 will have the maliability close to a RAW photo, but what are the advantages of recording at high bitrates to a normal codec on say, a GH3? Apart from less JPEG artifacts.

Hilarious. Thank you Andrew :D

I owned a D5200 until a couple months ago. My main caveats were to do with the body and the interface. You had to hold down other buttons to change the ISO and aperture. Even after several months, I would often press the wrong button because they're all the same shape and size. Also there was no second control dial. The inability to change aperture while filming didn't bother me at all (ive never come across a situation where I would need to do that) but the other stuff above did. Manual focus was difficult because of the small viewfinder and no focus assists for the live view. There are some weird inconsistencies with settings when switching between live view and normal. Taking pictures in live view was awkward because there's quite a bit of delay before the picture is taken after pressing the shutter and also when that mirror slaps, it's loud and very mechanical. I never did any proper side by side comparisons, but the when I shot the same scene with the Nikon a few months after I'd shot it with a NEX 6, the Nikon seemed to have much less detail on distant objects. The colours in both video and stills always tended towards a greenish tint. There was no way to control highlights, and so brightly lit things in dark scenes would often blow out despite the generally great dynamic range. You can see the effect of this here:

Ok to start us off, let me show you a comparison I made between the Olympus PEN E-P5 and the Panasonic GX7 I was wondering if anyone has anything similar for the OMD EM1. I'm really considering getting one in the future because of IBIS, but the EP5's video quality was such a huge letdown (it looked like old camcorder footage) that Im skeptical about if the EM1 can be that much better.

Ended up ordering the 5r. Should be here tomorrow. Going to do a stills and video test over the weekend :)

Hi there, First of all, thanks to EOSHD for all the articles and videos. They've been extremely insightful.   Now a question to the forumers (and the man himself if he's around). I'm an "amateur enthusiast" if you will. I shoot mostly stills but would definitely like to get into doing short films.   I have considered the GH2 and Nikon D5200 but the former is too expensive and the latter is 24 megapixel (too much really) and also too expensive.   Eventually I heard about the Sony a57, and it's on its way to me now. The issue I have is that from most videos I've seen, the video quality seems poor. And then there are some that look great. Another gripe is that it has quite a limited lens range, and they're mostly very expensive.   What's attracting me to the NEX-5r is that although it only has a few lenses dedicated to it, I can actually buy mounts to adapt lenses from other systems. Also it has a more up to date sensor. I hear the a57 uses the 2010 D7000 sensor? The possible dealbreakers are the lack of flash and viewfinder. Also if you use one of those attachments, you can't use the other. However, I quite rarely use flash anyway and up til now I've always used compact point and shoots.   So can anyone give me advise? Maybe the most important factor is whether or not the NEX produces better stills and video or not.