maxotics

I think Andrew is too crazed to see the funniest, at least to me, comparison. Sony's $800 RX100 III has 50mbit video. Need I mention the $1,700 GH4 at 100mbit. For Nikon to release a camera that, AFAIK, is still stuck at 28mbits says it all. I don't see how NIkon can catch up. Sony has some serious momentum and Panasonic has kept, if not grown, all their MFT video base.

Can we hold Zach accountable for Nikon's advertising department? If you've work for/with any corporation you know the advertising department is not in the truth business :) Anyway, Zach is saying the same thing. Nikon full-frames are not good video cameras. Anyone who gets into video, or follows EOSHD, get this. The thread got lively because people criticized the camera as a stills camera. You said you returned it for ergonomics? Ergonomics as a video shooter or stills shooter. Andrew, you said it best in your original post. No video news here.

The data behind Derek Weston's post. Like he said, if you're shooting people the 5Ds are fine. But if you want to extract every last piece of usable DR then Nikons deliver. If anyone on this forum thinks Nikon full-frame cameras are bad cameras because they stink at video they are very mistaken ;) http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Landscape_scatter.htm

I didn't mean a solution where everyone can work in music/film who wants to; only a new, inexpensive way in, for a smart, determined or lucky few. pask74, if you could wave your magic want and eliminate all free music we would go back to the 70s, which I remember, and young people would start to listen to the same music over and over and over again. It would make it even more difficult for new bands to gain an audience. Everyone, young people especially, only have a limited amount of money to spend. It's not like the 16-year-old has money stashed under his mattress he can pull out to pay for music he stole ;) Whatever money people have to spend that trickles down to sound engineers is already being spent. The question isn't about how many sound engineers can make a living, the question is allocation of engineering budgets (for 100 bands or 10,000?) When I was young the Olympics meant rich white people with an interest in sports. The "amateur" thing was actually exclusionary. Then it was changed and penniless runners from Africa were able raise air-fare (from sponsors) and win races. Yet today, most people who want to make a living as an athlete can't. Economic structures change, but people always seem to re-create a star system. (In the Olympics, from trust funds to corporate sponsors). What young people have trouble seeing is that EVERYONE wants to be someone. No one WANTS to work in McDonalds. How can everyone make a living then, in the arts? If you want to be a sound engineer at your local church, or for corporate events, I'm pretty sure you can get those jobs. My parents pushed me into the Arts. I worked in Hollywood for a few years, but came to my own conclusion that it wasn't for me (which I won't bore you with). I'm pushing my kids into the Arts too, because I think all young people should pursue what they're interested because later in life you know too much ;) Others have suggested in this thread, and I agree, that if you really, really want it, you can make a living in the Arts. HOWEVER, it won't be a life you imagined as a young person. I love the series Entourage because it makes show business realistic enough, shows just enough failure, to make the life-style seem plausible and attainable. In real life you don't know if there's going to be a "next" episode. So after a while most people make choices that give them more security. Finally, as I tell my kids, all professionals ultimately make a living working in a narrow formula. This is true for actors, singers, etc. Yes, occasionally they'll go out and experiment. But for the most part, we pay for what we can expect. When my wife and I watch the "Good Wife" we expect a well-written character drama. The artist on the show may want to do a torture scene out of "Scandal", but if they did I'd stop watching. If I bought a Radio-head album and it was full of hard-core punk rock I'd probably wouldn't by their next album. In short, all Art becomes a "Job". That isn't necessarily a bad thing. The life of Mick Jagger and your local high school principal isn't as dissimilar as it looks. But I'm getting ahead of the story .... :)

From the moment of your first breath, you're born with an "inheritance". It may be money, looks, talent. It may be none of those but at least you're born in a rich country. In my experience, those who speak the loudest about injustice are usually those with trust funds. If you really are "kicked in the behind" you don't see that as unusual, that's your starting point. You work on succeeding at what you want to do, let's say music. You don't have time to do anything else. It is what it is. In my experience, people who talk the loudest do the least in changing anything. They have the time and money to look superior by pointing out the "faults" in others (or vague systems like capitalism and lobbying, etc.) Anyone who has really tried to "kick against the pricks", who has put their family comfort on the line, knows the truth. If you fight for justice you do it alone, more alone than most people can conceive, because again, few do it. No one EVER thanks you. No one ever understands why you would spend time fixing the world for others instead of making things better for yourself. No one really believes that corporations are evil. Corporations don't kill music. People who work at corporation kill music, if they indeed do. If you fired the CEO from Universal Music and had everything vote for a new way of doing business it would end up being the same way as the first way, protect or increase the income for the 7,000 employees. 7,000 people probably just like you.

Yes, that sums it up! As much as I am into cameras, if you took any photo or video I took in the past and asked me what camera I shot it with I probably wouldn't remember, or care. I sold my BMPCC by the way because as much as I love the look, it wasn't practical for me. However, YOU'RE a professional so I can play annoying guy in the peanut gallery ;)

I remember reading as a kid that the reason Ringo Star was asked to join the Beatles was that he owned a drum set (his family had money). That made complete sense to me. When I got interested in music an electric guitar, like a Fender Stratocaster was at least $300. I remember buying a used Les Paul 20th Anniversery model for $300 (long, long ago sold). That was in the late 1970s. Today, you can buy a decent knockoff of those guitars for a little over a hundred. Until the 1990s, getting into music was very expensive. You had to mow a lot of lawns! And being able to record, produce and distribute your own record--almost unheard of. I think I've lived through one of the most dramatic changes in the economics of Art since man first beat on a drum. That said, NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. The population has grown from 2 billion to over 6 billion in the past 50 years. Staggering. You think it's bad that musicians get squeezed out of royalties. Look around. Massive amount of student debt, credit cards, no job security, pensions. But again, more of the same. The good news is that when a new technology comes out the early adopters have a chance to gain an audience that is there more for curiosity than anything else. In fact, a band, for example, is always out-gunned when it wants to compete against other new bands AND ESPECIALLY the existing bands trying to protect their small toe-hold (by out-touring them, etc). YouTube may close a door, but a window will be opened somewhere else :)

There are close to one million books published globally, every year. There are over 40,000 full-length audio releases. If you want to check each one out it would take your 53 hours per day (weekends included). Want to watch every movie? 32 hours per day. In short, artists produce more content then anyone can keep up with. Again, that's just listening/watching once to see if you like it. Then there are magazines, TV, art shows, lectures, etc. All this content has a simple effect on many people--it makes them anxious. Big companies grow on the back of that anxiety. They select a few (if even using political methods) which gives people MORE time to enjoy that art, and less time trying to keep up with all the artists vying for their attention. There are only so many hours in the day. Art hasn't changed since the dawn of time. From my favorite poet on the subject of the artistic way of life, from H. S. Mauberley, by Ezra Pound (1920) Here are a couple of selections: MR. NIXON In the cream gilded cabin of his steam yacht Mr. Nixon advised me kindly, to advance with fewer Dangers of delay. "Consider "Carefully the reviewer. "I was as poor as you are; "When I began I got, of course, "Advance on royalties, fifty at first," said Mr. Nixon, "Follow me, and take a column, "Even if you have to work free. "Butter reviewers. From fifty to three hundred "I rose in eighteen months; "The hardest nut I had to crack "Was Dr. Dundas. "I never mentioned a man but with the view "Of selling my own works. "The tip's a good one, as for literature "It gives no man a sinecure. "And no one knows, at sight, a masterpiece. "And give up verse, my boy, "There's nothing in it." ... Beneath the sagging roof The stylist has taken shelter, Unpaid, uncelebrated, At last from the world's welter Nature receives him; With a placid and uneducated mistress He exercises his talents And the soil meets his distress. Yes, no one at sight knows a masterpiece and most artists' work is pissing in the wind--I can tell you mine is ;)

I really enjoyed your reel, but I felt some clips were weak (for my taste) because the image turned murky-gray because, I assume, you were trying to bring out shadow detail that just isn't there in H.264. In my experience, the biggest difference in video source is whether it is H.264 source or RAW. I don't watch anything in 4K, (or know anyone who does), so i don't see major improvements to anything you shot, if you had shot in GH4. I'm not suggesting you don't upgrade to the GH4, only that it won't change the look much. As for the a7s, you will want what it can do in low light, but like you say, you can rent it. Same with a RAW based camera. I have an a7 and a6000 now. Sony to me, has finally "got it". However, it will be a couple of years before the lenses and gear catch up. And who knows, they may backslide. I also have a GM1 and it simply floors me how good that video is that comes out of that camera. Here's some stuff I shot (between photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157644774969627/) in auto mode. [BTW, dropped camera 2 feet, in felt case, and it cracked a bit on edge and now doesn't soot in shutter mode, very flimsy camera].

I can't even handle the GM1! :) I dropped it the other day (which I blame my daughter for, she was talking to me) and now it has a hair-line crack near the flash. The last time I did this for a living I used one of these '> One day I didn't tighten the tripod head enough and the camera tilted up into the sun. All you old foggies know what that meant (hole through the tube membrane).

To further what varicam said... "live action" Camcorders, with their smaller chips and mature technology will autofocus better than any DSLR you can afford now. The shallow DOF quality you can get with DSLR's is a double-edged sword. Great if it works, useless footage (out of focus) if it doesn't. It sounds like you have a lot of things to get together, content, audio, lighting, format, etc. You should KISS here (keep it simple stupid) :)

If photos are no interest and you don't need super shallow, wide-angle DOF than the BMPCC is the way to go. It is made for RAW. It does basic compression so the files are half the size as the 5D3. If you're doing "moods" then the camera is light/small, can go with you everywhere. It is super-easy to use. The 5D3 with a lens is a heavy beast and is not made for RAW video out of the box. The BMPCC will give you a rich, subtle tonality look you can't get from the GH4, or any other non-RAW camera. It will get you to usable RAW the fastest, Finally, it will be one quarter the price. In fact, it was made just for the purpose you want to use it for.

Sony a6000. Focus magnification for manual lenses. full-time EVF. Can change aperture on fly. I might pick the D5300 is photography was my primary use. I like the size of the a6000, but agree with Inazuma, it may be an issue for you so you should handle both cameras.

Hi Julian. What I mean is that a lens built for MFT is design to deliver a maximum sharpness and light gathering across the sensor size for which it is designed. Even cheap MFT glass is going to be pretty good. It is, in my experience. When you use other lenses designed for other (bigger sensors) you generally don't see edge problems because you're taking the center part of the glass. You could argue that these lenses are bigger and you aren't really getting anything for nothing. Because video is taking really a fraction of the sensor output, it lessens the amount of lens problems you might see in a larger res files. And again, some blur is needed in video or it is disconcerting. I can't see the difference in video I've taken with and without a focal reducer. I don't mind having big lenses because I shoot mostly APS-C and FF photography. However, if I was going to do only video, which seems to be the OPs intention, then I would want to start with what I know works really well, (MFT glass designed for the sensor and with IS). and THEN look at legacy glass. Or put another way, I don't see a really compelling reason to buy expensive large sensor glass for MFT video. Again, just looking to give some perspective. Good ND filters are expensive. IS is important, etc.

@Ondřej Nevělík If you're climbing and need small/size weight for video than you should check out the GM1. I don't like it for my use, but for yours I would probably love it death. The video that comes out of the GM1/GX7, as Andrew has written about elsewhere, is phenomenal.

Even in photography, camera movement is probably the number one cause of image blur. The OP should keep in mind that the speedboosters work by sacrificing overall image quality for wider apertures and image. In other words, if a lens maker came out with the speedbooster built in, the people would probably howl at how bad the lenses perform in tests. In video, the trade-off is worth it for legacy glass that is usually made for full-frame. I have a huge Nikon lens collection now, and other glass, and I'm tired of it. I'm probably going to sell most of it and just get a Sony 10-18mm zoom for my a7 and now a6000. Keep in mind, Lasers_pew_pew that I shoot primarily photography but video has always been a passion so I hang out here to live vicariously. For what it's worth this is my advice o. Buy MFT mount with stabilization o. Buy MFT mount because auto-focus comes in handy more than one wants to think o. Only buy legacy glass if you're SURE you want it's character/look (sharpness/distortion wise, I don't believe most legacy glass can compete with modern lenses made for MFT mount). o. It's fun to get more light through speed-boosters. But if you shoot daylight, you may end up needing your money in ND filters and lighting modifiers. o. If you want to play with manual lenses, get them at thrift shops. Just keep an eye out, or ask friends. They pop up over time. Want to ditto markbatey again. If you're not going to shoot tripod/rig, you have to have IS or prepare to give yourself and your audience a headache ;)

The GM1 is so tiny AND light, as other have pointed out, that you have to learn how to work with the small dials. It's frustrating in the beginning. Panasonic seems to have fit the latest/greatest video technology in the camera. If your primary goal is to shoot video then this is the camera for you. The silent shutter is also unique. People just think I'm fiddling with the camera. They don't realize I'm taking photos when silent mode is on. Controlling the camera through a cell phone also works well. I have an Android/Samsung S something. The BAD. I'm getting the a6000 because photography is more important to me than video. I also need viewfinder because I'm old. That doesn't mean I won't use the GM1 for video and silent shutter stuff, or when light and small is most important. However, once you put any lens on it other than the kit, or pancake, you might as well have something bigger like the GX7 or a6000. Did anyone mention it's tiny? ;)

I agree, the detail coming out of the GM1 is amazing to me. However, if you want really nuanced color and dynamic range non of these cameras can compare to RAW based imaging. For video, these Panasonic cameras are marvelous. They come as close to the end result of RAW in high contrast lighting as it gets. A photo coming out of any Canon/Nikon will crush any of these Panasonic cameras. There are many photographers trying to prove that MFT is as good as APS-C. I can't convince myself. There's a lot to like about the small MFT platform. And certainly, there's nothing "wrong" with MFT photos. You can just get more out of larger sensor cameras. Like video, a question of what you're trying to accomplish.

I feel for you! In my perfect world, everyone who picks up a camera would be given with 3 assistants :) I keep shooting video with the GM1 which I want to post. And then I need to shoot some video on the a7 with the tilt-shift... but by the end of the day I'm wiped!

I watched this while eating ice cream, how you don't mind ;) Why not matted to a video background?

I wouldn't sell your Canons quickly if you do a fair amount of photography in natural light, especially indoors. It doesn't surprise me that the JPGs from the GH4 and similar to the screen shots of the H.264 if there is no motion. Most video compression quality is based on how well it stays to a low bit-rate when every pixel is changing in every frame (motion). The C100 is built as a video camera so my guess is Canon has special chips and software that bin the pixels for optimum quality. In other words, a C100 delivers better in-camera images to compression, over a comperable 5dII lets say. Anyway, can we absolutely be sure compression is the difference between the C100 and consumer cameras? A lot can go on between the sensor and final video compression. If I could wave my magic wand, I would fix the number one misconception of many people on this forum--that there is only good compression and bad compression. Like everything else, trade-offs are always chosen. What's a good decision by Panasonic may be good for one situation, but bad for another. Same for Canon. If you're running things at Canon or Panasonic, do you pick high dynamic range over color depth, or color depth over high dynamic range? Do you favor motion, or stillness? Yes, I bet the GH4 is sharp as hell, but put a color rich subject in front of you Canon and see which color you like better. It's not about picking the best camera, the GH4 is not better than the Canons or visa-vera. It's about picking the best trade-offs. When I look at a study I want to see both arguments. Even a 5DIII against an iPhone will lose in the "what is easiest to take a street photo with". Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't sell your Canons, only that you should know, and accept, the trade-off you'll make.

Andy's the expert, but I believe most music videos require quite a bit of creativity (read variation in focal lengths). For those shots where you need 1.2 use a focal-reducer. IS can do strange things (like jumpy pans). You might be better off with a physical stabilizer.

How much is the difference in video, between an APS-C and MFT sensor camera is CODEC and how much sensor size? I wonder if many of the problems attributed to the CODEC are actually sensor related. It would seem to me that the greater distance between sensels that must be sampled down to 1920x1080, the softer the image and the greater probability for moire. Is it possible that if both the a6000 and GX7 ran exactly the same CODEC that they'd get the same results we see? Is there a way to isolate these variables, Andrew? When I look at the video I get from the a7 and the GM1, which have a wider difference in sensor sizes, the smaller sensor has a finer, cleaner, sharper image. The dynamic range for video seems better from the GM1, though in photo mode (when the a7 uses all the sensels) the a7 crushes the GM1. In fact, as hard as I try, I still fee the MFT sensor is too small for photography, for me. As hard as I try to see better video out of larger sensor cameras, I just don't see it (unless shallow DOF is used).

The Canon EOS-M is a marvelous little camera that can shoot 720 24p RAW through ML. It is a platform that can easily compete with the Sony NEX and now A series, but Canon isn't putting its weight behind it. Canon and NIkon's business is just too spread out. They're large, mostly stagnant corporations. They're now in the business of protecting their bottom-line for as long as they can. If there's one thing Panasonic's GM1 proves, there will be no single perfect camera. The kind of video you can get out of that thing, and silent-shutter stealthy shooting, is close to perfect. For what it is, I would say it IS perfect. If photography wasn't may main focus, I'd be GM1 this and GM1 that as bad as Andy! In short, I don't know what anyone could do to improve on that little camera. I've now been using the a7 for a few weeks. So far, there is nothing major I don't like about the camera and I have a long history of Sony annoyances. For small- full-frame shooting, it is close to perfect. The Blackmagic cameras are not "sadly flawed" to me when I factor in what they can do for the price. If you want professional-system RAW, at a consumer price, they are the only game in town. I bet some executives at Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony say, "Why is Andrew always complaining about what Canon and Nikon can't do." If all you want to do is go out and shoot with the best camera available, who cares? Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony (and a bit of Olympus and Fuji) are all on their way to building that perfect camera. Who cares about your Dad's camera company that is beginning to smell like stale farts? ;)

Don't get me wrong, the GM1 is an AWESOME camera. I have a loupe, which I used with the EOS-M, but it's a bit bulky to carry. I want to fall into that category, but I keep shooting more photo than video. I am worried about selling it because if I do want a "stealth video camera" nothing will beat it. If I get the a6000 to replace it, I can more easily use the same lenses on both the a7 and that. However, the a6000 will be bigger and softer in video. Small size and weight are important to me. @Fuzzynormal it is a really tough decision. I put the camera up for sale and then took it down. So, I say I'll sell it, but haven't ;) Oh the pain, the pain! :) There is no camera like it.