maxotics

Why would you sell you BMPCC which records 1080p in RAW? The a7s will offer higher resolution, but record video in 8bit, which means, if you don't nail your exposure perfectly there will be no fixing it. And, you won't be able to grade color like you can with BMPCC RAW dngs. This 4K stuff is like a shiny Xirconian diamond. Real diamonds are RAW :) Different cameras for different needs.

Ditto Wolf33d "1080p full pixel readout full frame at 50mbps is perfect for me" Sorry, from a photographic perspective, as good as many APS-C and MFT cameras are, as they say about auto engines, there is "no replacement for displacement". No focal reducer is going to catch a full-frame at as good IQ, IMHO. Forget about the camera for a second, does any other manufacturer have a full-frame sensor in the pipeline? Andrew? Will be interesting to see when this camera comes out. Even at $2,700 (assuming GH4 is $1,700) there will be many who will pay that extra thousand for full-frame low-light IQ. They already do in still photo land.

As a Sigma aficionado, I doubt very much they would use a Foveon sensor, as good as they are in still photography. As a purist, Foveon does sensors right, it samples light in horizontal layers, blue, green then red. It means you don't need any debayering, all you have to do is combine those values and you have a true 3-color pixel. In theory ;) In practice, the red layer gets so little light, sitting beneath the other two, that it's signal must be amplified and luma information from the top two layers must be used to negotiate a true color for the three. There is also a problem that when light angles into the sensor it creates distortions. I don't know the half of it. What I do know is that the video on Foveon cameras is worse than the worst video you can imagine. Why they even put video onto the camera is a mystery to me. The write times of RAW images on those cameras, or at least the latest one I have DP1M, with the best Sandisk card, is around 11 seconds! And though you can still take photos until the buffer fills up you can't preview images, etc. The write time is long, most theorize, because a lot of computations have to be made before converting the analogue signals to digital. Other research by Bill Claff shows that the nothing changes in the sensor from a change in ISO. Everything is shot at 100, the metadata is used, if you set higher, by post-processing. Recently, Sigma/Foveon is coming out with a new camera that has a more detailed top layer. Again, stuff to make your head explode. I could see something similar in sensor design from Sony, maybe a top layer of pixels for focus, who knows! But a Foveon sensor... inconceivable :)

Yes, I believe that's true. Our sensitivity to contrast is much higher than our sense of color, so they use green, which as you say, we're more sensitive to, to capture better contrast than color. When I was a kid all firetrucks were red. Then they said we're actually very blind about red in the night, so they painted them yellow (closer to green). Now they seem back to red. Guess Firemen would rather look badass in the day ;) The other thing to keep in mind that most of our eye-sight is mostly color blind. It is ones the cones, which are in the center of our eyes, a few degrees of view, that discern color. A lot of what we think is color is only our brain filling in the pieces.

Andrew you would know better than I, but what manufacturer has put in a center crop video box for any camera? My guess is they don't want to handle a million phone calls that go "why am I zoomed into my kid's forehead when I shoot video on this camera!?" Assuming this remains true, then the only way for Sony to deliver expected focal-length video from any of their cameras is by line-skipping of pixel binning, each of which still suffers from lack of global shutter (that is, jello effect). So I see any full-frame 4K video as being a repeat of their VG series story. Nice marketing of large sensor, poor real-world results. I agree with you, the GH4 is the standard, for my budget at any rate.

Panasonic has a history of delivering better and better results with the MFT sensor. The only decent video I've seen from full-frame is the 5D3 hacked with ML. Looking at the rolling shutter problems with the AX100, which is only a 1-inch sensor, I find it hard to believe they can fix the problem in a full-frame. I agree with Andy (I think Andy thinks this) that if Sony could perfect video from an APS-C that would deliver benefits you couldn't get from the GH4 or other MFT sensor bodies, like lower noise and the ability to use better glass (or different, at any rate). Even Nikon has been improving APS-C size video. However, I am NOT saying it would be better than MFT, just different trade-offs, which I'm sure Andrew will figure out for us :) If the past is any indication, good full-frame video is years away.

I had a Tamron 24-70/2.8 for the d600 which I sold and now regret. Just curious, Andy, if you feel the Tamron and Zeiss are similar? I saw the same thing with the Camera Labs footage. I think Andrew made a disparaging comment on it, then took it down (rightfully). But I can say it. I think Camera Labs screwed up the outdoor footage somehow. Either wrong camera settings or video compression, etc.

"Complaining?" So we're a bunch of old ladies :) I use the BMPCC with a used 14-45mm I found for $170. I also have Nikon glass with adapter. It isn't the money, that is a problem with the BMPCC (assuming you already have a fast computer) it's the time and lack of idiot features (which I'm not too proud to use). If I were you, and I didn't have to have full-frame (a7) then I'd be very excited too. As many have speculated, if the a6000 has pixel binning like the RX10, then it should remove the drawback of having an APS-C sized sensor (more line skipping compared to MFT) gaining better low-light and DR. You are very right, Sony and Panasonic and really pushing the envelop. And that is to be cheered!!!! Canon and Nikon, for video, not seeing much.

Hi Andy, I want to test this again, can you point me to where that hack is? (I think I have a driftwood version, but not sure if latest). How close do you think it is to the g5 or g6? Thanks!

The "excuse" that prompted me to get the BMPCC was the post where you showed stills from the Blackmagic. I even set up a group on Flickr for them, though seems no one is interested, or isn't posting their own images https://www.flickr.com/groups/bmpcc/ What I've found in my explorations are: PROs o. When conditions right, the BMPCC shoots beautiful 2 megapixel RAW stills. CONs o. The BMPCC is susceptible to moire which is difficult to remove in post, even with Photoshop. o. I though it would be nice to get 24 fps when shooting portraits, but have discovered that the frames in between expressions are always useless. So I don't see using the BMPCC for any kind of portrait work. I know, sounds like a bad idea from the start ;) As this relates the GH4. The stills from you test clip, the car, are stunning. They are not RAW, but my guess better than a cell phone. I can definitely see the GH4 shaking up the wedding industry. It's always been easier for the stills guy to shoot video, vs the video guy shoot stills. Now the table is turned with the GH4. In your tests, it looks like the GH4 has RAW cameras beat, but only because you're showing sharpness. I hate to be a nag about this, but I need to point out that one will be stuck with the skin tones the GH4 comes away with. I believe if you compared the GH4 to any RAW based camera on subjects to which humans are very sensitive to, in color tone, like faces, there would a better balance of strengths and weaknesses for both cameras.

Seems a lot of people here have the same thoughts, including me. I've owned both the Nex7 and G5, both of which I liked, and miss, for different reasons. My 2-cents. o. Mic input. If I have time to mic somebody I'm going to have time to sync external audio which I would do no matter what in those situations. Really, only crucial if I'm going to lock the camera down in a studio, which I'm not. So NEUTRAL o. Larger sensor. If I shot still photography and had to choose only one camera it would be A6000. However, I have other cameras so this is neutral for me. o. Off center focused, as mentioned above, I could never get this right with the Nex7. I doubt they've improved this. I don't have any hard evidence, but felt the g5 kept focus better. (partially due to smaller sensor). o. Video. Now that I have a BMPCC I see most H.264 cameras as the same in image quality, but different in ease-of-use. Shooting video with the g5 was EFFORTLESS. Shooting with the d600, a super PITA. The Nex 7, easy enough, but just never felt comfortable. o. Low light. That's the $20,000 question. From the guitar shop scenes in Gordon's videos it looks like the A6000 uses some form of pixel binning like the RX10. If so, would give the low light video edge to A6000 (Andrew, would be great if you had some moire producing patterns in your test scene). Anyway, that would be my only misgiving with the g6, that I would get better low light with A6000. When Andrew first wrote about the A6000, which I've been watching, I wanted one. Now I'm back to getting a g6 when the price is good. If I want IQ or film-like low light, nothing beats the BMPCC. BTW, I predict the infatuation with 4K will die down when people realize the image lacks the good skin tones you can get with RAW. Not saying 4K isn't beautiful, but only in sharpness. It still looks like video-face color. Will have to see. The a6000 vs 53000? A6000 if video greater than photo. If photo greater than video, 5300. The a6000 at $650 may sound cheap to some, but what you can get with $350 more (BMPCC). Still worlds apart if you like the film-look. But if you're not going to go that way, why spend $350 more for an a6000, over the g5/6 when they go discount? I'd rather have more money in glass and a camera that loves to shoot video. I try out tons of cameras. Again, I liked the Nex 7, but I miss the g5. I'm going to press the "Post" button now so I can change my mind ;)

It's coming.. Unlike gold, the price of the camera hasn't dropped much yet! I was reading the camera labs review of the g6 and it reminded me how I felt about the g5 http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_G6/ I'm going to get one, I just need to sell a camera or come up with some reason to get it. I helped a friend shoot something a few weeks ago. I used the GF3, which is great for what it was, but wish I had the g6. Next time I will. I shot some footage with the BMPCC and d600, but at the risk of you saying I told you so, the footage just wasn't worth the post processing. The d600 because the DOF worked against my focusing it (didn't have glasses on or a loupe) and even the BMPCC was overwhelmed by the harsh lighting and again, focus issues. I know, I'm slow. Don't give up on me ;)

I have to disagree with Andy here. Try as I might, I can't "remove" the wifi from a g6 with my iPhone :) Remote, that's another story ;)

If you already have good MFT glass then the BMPCC is perfect (compared to others) for that application. The only thing that really bothers me about the BMPCC is the moire that appears in DNGs when the image is too bright and sharp. I doubt that will be an issue with what you want to shoot. On the plus side, in low-light RAW based cameras become grainy, H.264 cameras become blotchy. When you shoot with any of the cameras above you'll get a nice, smooth image. But your blacks will be crushed. To see the difference in images lease look at these two shots I too with a H.264 and RAW based camera http://maxotics.com/?p=146 The BMPCC also need the fastest SD cards, plan about $50 per 32GB at current rates. Not a good camera to shoot long-form stuff; that is, leave camera on for an hour. In general, any RAW based camera will require at least 4 times the money, time, effort, etc. Out of the box, the video from a GH3 is, say, 10 times better than the image from the BMPCC. And it will stay that way unless you put 10 times the effort into the RAW based video. However, if you do that, then the BMPCC will end up 10x better than the GH3. All depends on what trade-offs you want to with your time.

What kind of big jobs? On the wide angle, there is the panny 7-14mm. I read somewhere that ultra-wide lenses are physically wide angle optics attached to telephotos, that the lens gets a wide angle then has to enlarge it to make it through the distance to the sensor. This makes sense to me. I find the quality of ultra-wide angles made for aps-c or ff to be somewhat soft. If you're not doing much photography then seems to be you should just get a MFT wide-angle. I would think it would give the best quality on any MFT camera. My guess is that is has to do little, if any, "telephoto" work onto the image to get it to the sensor.

Great, thanks jonpais, another site to procrastinate on ;)

I'd like to argue with you, but I have a BMPCC and every time I press the record button I mentally calculate how fat I'll get eating M&Ms waiting for the files to copy over and process :)

Hi jcs, Can you explain that a bit more? Thanks. Also, I was always intrigued by the TM700, you make it sound like a very nice camera is acquired cheap. Have you used one? Thoughts?

It is truly an amazing image, as jcs says. I want one! But it still has that video-look, high contrast and sharpness. It looks like what 1080p is meant to look like. I can't see the difference between that and the best broadcast TV. You have to hand it to Panasonic! All the said, I don't believe it will have the 3D pop you can get from RAW shooting. We'll have to see. Musty, don't sell your 5D3 unless you have no interest in what RAW does.

And dynamic range. The 4K image will decrease moire and increase sharpness, but it won't save the shadows. And only the shadow knows :)

I was just looking at some 4K footage. You must be right, it looks a lot better than I thought it would.

Um, guys, does Andy need an intervention? He didn't mention the g6? :)

Amazon says not ready until April 21st. I loved the 5N and Nex7 too, except for the hotshoe and some other quibbles. If the a6000 has full-sensor read-out like the RX10, get me my Santa wish list ;)

Yes, exposure is different, color, and aperture wasn't matched for same DOF. However, tests seem similar to my mine. The Panasonics are very sharp but colors a bit washed out. The Canons colors are richer but the image softer. Unless I was going to maximum shallow DOF and/or color saturation, the Panasonic gives the cleaner image. What I concluded, at any rate.