maxotics

Absolutely agree. My GM1 is a throw in the pocket camera. I really need an EVF so am going to sell it. The only thing I can see missing with the GM1 is the silent shutter. M100, again, i want to say, at least for me, part of my trying out different cameras is just middle-age amusement. My time is better spent reading "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum. Or paying for a month or two of Lynda, and watching Photoshop and shooting tutorials. I assume you're a young person. This is a place to rebel and shoot with whatever camera you can get someone to give you! Or, if you don't know why you need it, you don't!

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor. With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart. MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light. If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT? Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography. Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video. The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor. If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch. I agree. there is nothing "magical" about FF video. Quite the opposite. I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems. The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs. When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

RAW-based would either be the Blackmagic pocket Cinema Camera or a Canon running Magic Lantern. You don't want RAW. I was just making a point that there is no end to the kind of perfection you can go after in video. Resolution is just one aspect. If you're going to do photos as night I'd recommend a larger sensor, so the a6000 would be better (or most APS-C). But again, micro-four-thirds is small/lighter.

Personally, I value dynamic range over resolution. So I'd rather have a RAW-based image over any of those cameras, including the GH4. However, RAW is a lot of work, so I have a GM1 now. I doubt I would see much difference in the video from it, and the G6 you had. I doubt I could tell the difference in any of those cameras in 95% of all the shots you might do. I have NEVER heard anyone say they wouldn't watch a video or film because the resolution was too low. I enjoy trying out new cameras, and comparing their differences, but I recognize it's a cretinous hobby. It's something to do when procrastinating work. When I go out to shoot, honestly, I don't care what camera I have. In fact, whenever I look at photos or video I took a few years ago I can't remember, for the life of me, what camera I used! Sometimes I see it in the EXIF info. What kind of travel blog do you want to shoot? Even if money is no object, you'll always have to make many compromises.

Money will not be a huge object for a professional who needs the kind of look the camera can get. They'd probably fly you onto the set as a "consultant" too. For everyone else, you might have a small market if you sold the camera as a kit, or sold it for EOS-Ms, which can be had for $200/body. As someone who has built robotic panorama makers, most of the "investment" is in time figuring our the right materials, assembly, tech, software, etc. There is not much, if any, money in this. But you'll get more people into the world of that kind of photography if you can take your manufacturing out of it. Now that there are so many 3D type printers, etc., you should be able to partner with someone who can cut/package the pieces as needed. Just my 2-cents. Also, by using other camera bodies you could sell into the photographic market.

Exactly. I think it very neat, but to me IMAX is about negative size, not shallow DOF, so thought the original post a bit misleading.

The DOF adapters also had surfaces 4x larger than their sensors, if not a lot more. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a nice image, only that it's only good for shallow DOF. I was thinking along HurtinMinorKey's lines too. Having 4 BMPCC shooting parts of the plate and stitching them together, that would be something!

I have a GM1. With a 14mm pancake is weights practically nothing. So, not only does it fit in your pocket, but it doesn't weigh it down, like just about any other camera. For photos, it will be better than the GoPro, and for photos, an APS-C size camera like the A6000 would be better than the GM1 (though again, will be heavier, bigger). Pictures don't do the small size of the GM1 justice. At first, I found it a bit difficult moving the dials, but I've figured it out and now I find the camera very easy to operate. Andrew can speak better to this, but the GM1 1080p is close to what I see in 4K downsampled. If sharpness is your thing I believe the GM1, for video, will be better than the A6000 because the sensor is smaller, and pixels closer together. However, color depth, shallow DOF and low-light will be better with the A6000. Only you can choose the trade-off. Physically, it is impossible for any camera to be as small as the GM1 and have a bigger sensor ( at least now). What really makes the GM1 a camera that I find difficult to part with is the silent shutter. It is truly SILENT. Because it is doing a kind of sensor dump, you can get banding, or the jello effect in certain high movement situations. If you want to shoot anything in stealth mode than, to me, there is NO OTHER option but the GM1. I have tons of cameras, none of them shoot silently. I have found this feature a lot more useful than I expected. Also, the remote control of the camera through a smart phone is fantastic. If you want to narrate anything to the camera, you just connect to your phone, wirelessly, then focus the camera on you (using your cellphone screen) and hit record from your phone. I believe the A6000 does this too. I can report that the Panasonic works near perfectly for me. Hope this helps.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't see how this is any different than the DOF adapters, like Letus, made for camcorders before DSLRs. You can get a beautiful, shallow DOF, but the image will be very soft. Don't get me wrong, it will produce a stylized image not possible in post (because depth can't be ascertained from a 2D image). Still, a one-trick pony. Am I missing anything?

jonpais, I really enjoyed your video 30/4 Park. Why do a documentary in a language you don't understand when you can do films like that? Of course, I have trouble taking my own advice too :) BTW, one thing I really love about VIMEO is I can set the viewer to exact resolution within my screen. With Youtube, it either takes up too much of my screen, or too little. It always seems to scale video, unless there's a trick I don't konw. So I wasn't able to view your video in the best possible way, unfortunately.

http://www.amazon.com/TASCAM-DR-05-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B004OU2IQG/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1400598106&sr=1-4&keywords=audio+recorder+tascam When I researched this I think the Tascam was the only one that has a phantom power supply to external mic if needed, not that I use it. It has a tripod socket. Haven't used mine much, but this is what I bought after all my research. The most important thing to remember in using any of these recorders is to make sure it is recording when you hit the record. At first press it only shows levels! I've lost audio because of this (wasn't recording when I thought it was).

Andy, can you put some links up to any interesting footage shot with the lenses you recommend? BTW, I now have a Canon 24mm TS-E II, which I hope to share some footage with the a7 shortly.

I have a Panasonic 14-45 with the external button for OIS (good for Blackmagic) and got it used for $170. The lens feels very plastic-y but the images are very good. I compared to a Nikon 24mm and couldn't see any difference. As for the f-stop. Having the lowest possible is nice, but you shouldn't lose any sleep over it. Except for shallower DOF with a wider lens, you can still use any lens in low light at 3.5, say, you just gain a bit of noise. A little time with noise reduction will probably get you to where you were with 2.8 with no work. Also, lenses that say that they go 2.8 through out the range, for example, are not exact in that--at least not in my experience. Of course, we'll wait for Andy to bring the truth down from mount Panasonic :)

The more I use the a7 (for photography however) the more I like it. I used to have perfect eye-sight. In my late 40s I started needing reading glasses. I can no longer look at an LCD up close without glasses. If I try to look, back and forth, without glasses, between the LCD and what's in front of me, I get blurry eyed (and maybe a headache). With the Sony a7 I can set the diopter and have no eye strain, going back and forth. I believe Anyone who needs reading glasses, and uses an a7, will NEVER go back to a Canikon without an EVF. I can't see that I ever will. The focus assist features, with the a7 and manual lenses is near perfect. The EVF gives you a very good idea of what you're going to get in post. It's difficult to determine the fair price of something without com parables. I believe Sony could sell a fair amount of a7s for $3,500. There's no camera like it. The 5d3 gets that much. Why not? As Ebrahim said, it makes sense in relation to their other cameras. When these cameras come out, a lot of people buy them, play with them, and re-sell them back to Amazon. Within a week you can probably get an a7s for around $2,100 with almost no wear and tear. @Michael, what camera would you use to shoot both high quality, shallow DOF photo and video in a low-light, indoor function? If money is no object, what camera can match what the a7s will offer? Anyway, I'm with Ebrahim, though maybe a few weeks after it hits country stores ;)

@jonpais. Thanks for the video links. The 5d3, shooting ML RAW, with Canon 24TSE is the setup to have. The a7s won't shoot RAW and it's real benefit, to me, is less moire and low-light shooting. Anyone here shoot video with a TS? I'm going to get one as soon as I get a good price (probably a Rokinon). Then I will be happy to shoot some test footage using the a7. If I stumble across a suitcase of money I'll get a 5d3 too :) Another, option for the OP is a tilt-shift lensbaby to MFT. At least get some good creative looks too.

It would be helpful to know more about what you want to shoot. I'll assume you mean exactly what you say, pointing a camera at buildings and hitting record. Before I get long-winded, have you considered the need for a tilt shift lends, like the Canon 24 TS (or 17mm), which is about $2,200 and would best be used on a 5D3, which you could also use to shoot raw. That would be over a $5,000 setup. Another approach for you to consider is a high (10fps?) camera, where you could simulate moving footage with near future proof high MP images.

I hope to post some video soon. The a7 definitely succumbs to video moire. However, I bought it mostly for photography. It seemed obvious to me that Sony announced the a7s to take some wind out of Panasonic's sails. My guess is the camera will come out fall/winter. After a few days, I have not found anything I don't like about the a7. Being able to set the diopter to my vision and chimp in viewfinder is more useful for me than the d600. Focus zoom and peaking with manual lenses is extremely useful. Really, a remarkable camera. Sony keeps improving their firmware and ergonomics. However, the Sigma DP1M still takes a better photo than the a7 with a Nikon 24mm. Most wouldn't see difference though.

Thanks, yes, I wasn't saying that low contrast was superior. I happen to like that look, but there's no accounting for taste, as it's said. When I tested the BMPCC against the GM1 I found that outside the GM1 was good enough for me, compared the BMPCC. Indoors is where I saw a big difference between cameras. I wouldn't say one was superior to the other, only that I liked the BMPCC (ProRes) look better and that I could not get the same look from the GM1, no matter how hard I tried. Today I shot some with the GM1, focal reducer, and Nikon 24d. Seemed to have a nice flat look. If Andrew wanted to help me he would tell me what lenses or setups I should use to get an ugly low contrast look closest to RAW :)

I buy brand name SD cards only, Sandisk if possible. Don't know what the weather is like in Saigon, but when I go boating or anything very humid and hot my cameras have gone flaky.

If one had to make a film out of that footage I would pick the GH4. Beautiful crispness! However, I don't feel any of that footage showed the low-contrast look possible with the 5D3 RAW, and not the GH4. In the scenes where there was wide dynamic range, like when you shot under the arches, or into shadows, it seemed both cameras were similar. The GH4 did look more contrasty, but not by much. I believe, if you shot indoors the difference between the cameras would be more pronounced. Outside, the un-modified brightness just overwhelms both cameras. Thoughts, Andrew?

Is there somewhere I can read up on the basics of what you're doing, richg101 (BTW, love your Flickr photos!). I figure it's similar to video DOF adapters (which I once tried to build my own). Here are some of the house photos I've been taking http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157644520993434/ I generally like to use my Sigma dp1m. Was using d600 for some before selling it. As you can see, I do some perspective work in PS. My first question is how much more improved, if any, taking shots with a tilt-shift setup would be? If good, should I go with a TS lens, or the contraption you're talking about (if that is indeed a good way to go). As soon as I get my a7 I can get back on topic :) I'd love a thread on this, seems there is applications in video too.

@nac, no internal OIS as far as I know. I use a 14-45 with an external OIS switch, which I bought for the BMPCC. I think that stabilizes. @jonpais. I take it you do robotic flying. The camera weighs as close to nothing as I can imagine. I bought mine $470 used. I think it a bit too small. I'd wait for price to go down too.

@araucaria, looks interesting. I have enough problems without buying field-view equipment :) I have built my own robotic panorama devices a few years ago. Not enough room (time) here in Cambridge. Are you building your own? What is your idea? Of course, this is a video forum so this is WAY off subject ;) Anyway, I also have a pano head, which I plan to use soon to to some stitching again.

BTW, I sold my d600 and have ordered an a7. I've been taking a lot of architectural photos lately and not having a grid or level in the viewfinder makes it difficult. I don't like using DSLRs in live-mode. The sound of the mirror locking up unnerves me. Feels unnatural for the camera. Anyway, I have Andrew's guide and a GAS-y collection of Nikon glass. Of course, am curious to test the video against the GM1.

All video cameras start with RAW images, the primary difference between the BMPCC and the GH4 is that the former writes the image data "raw" from the sensor and the GH4 fits each image into a 24bit color space and compresses it into video then THROWS OUT the raw data. For whatever reason, I find that no matter how you set up h.264 video, it never looks as flat as RAW based video. There is more dynamic range, more nuance. I sold my BMPCC because it's distracting, but I miss it every day. As for problem with MFT being that of "the photographer", it all depends on the type of photography or video you want to do. The video that comes out of that GM1 is nothing sort of extraordinary--for video. The silent shutter allows for more photography in quiet places. The images are nice. However, for edge to edge sharpness and color depth, sorry, they are not as good as full-frames, or even APS-C. Many of the samples you showed have blurry backgrounds. For some kinds of photography, however, the edges are where the rubber meets the road. Either the MFT sensor isn't up to it, or the glass just doesn't exist. I don't know. If someone offered an architectural shoot to you and you were competing against other photographers with full-frame to medium format you'd see what I'm talking about. That isn't to say you couldn't take beautiful shots with an MFT camera, but not beautiful in edge-to-edge sharp beautiful. I can post some photos if you want to see what I see in my photography using these cameras.