leeys

I knew the stupid FF equivalence advocates were going to cause this kind of confusion sooner or later. It only refers to DoF equivalance. For exposures f/2.8 is f/2.8. The actual transmission value is another thing altogether.

I know it doesn't work in the GH3, so... If you need a remote, you can get a cheap wired one.

I need to stop coming here: Trying not to jump to the GH4 but posts like these aren't helping. xD

Ugh, ok, this is one of the few things I can directly comment on from experience. Back when I had the GH1 I tried adapting the 17-50. The Tamron's focus throw is terribly short, and the sloppy plastic build just made it even doubly harder to get accurate manual focus. Not recommended due to the exercise in frustration. Beautiful optics though.

Great review Andrew. Thanks! Pardon for the mega-reply post. Currently, no you can't. Aperture is controlled manually from the speedbooster for lenses that don't have an aperture ring (Nikon G), and I don't think there is an EF to M43 version yet. Curious, what film has 14 stops? I remember using print film for stills that had that lattitude but most projection film has about 10-11 at most. Some even had less. I think the GH4 should have about 12 stops from my memory, like most current M43 cameras. It's really very good, as good as a lot of Canons. It's really a failing on Canon sensor tech. Sony and Panasonic are really pulling ahead if Canon don't start producing something new. Uh, they can, but you need to use lenses that have a larger coverage than FF, since Speedboosters are focal reducers. Essentially, you're looking at 67 lenses, even then there might be vignetting. I'm sure you were describing separate use cases, but just to be certain: The electronic shutter still has a limit of ISO 1600 when in use, right?

Technical arguments aside... how well does it work practically? I'd like to know compared to a 2k 8 bit compressed file and a 2k raw file, how well does a 4k supersampled to 2k file grade? Will it be closer to the 8 bit file than the raw file?

Maybe you should stop communicating using the Internet. It's not real anyway, going by that logic.

Wow, really not seeing much difference between the two. Had to go back and forth a bit there. I think for relatively static shots it's not going to help that much.

Please don't start. I've already given up on *that* dream. Sony the consumer electronics company and Sony the electronics fabrication plant are two distinct groups with their own management and KPIs. I'm more likely to believe (and do believe) that Nikon just aren't very interested in winning the video war.

The press conference mentioned ProRes in one of the slides. I'm hoping it means an actual implementation of it. It still is mostly a stills camera. I got to take it for a spin, it's as fast befits a top level DSLR. Alas that speed doesn't really translate to video, obviously.

I'm an idiot. That's wrong. It's megabits, not bytes! Sorry. I believe you cannot change aperture during video recording though. That was the impression I got.

This probably won't be the choice for many here, but as I'm sitting here at the press conference, there are a few interesting tidbits, like ProRes support, 42Mbps at 50/60 FPS and finally, aperture control during movie live view! There's also a silent still mode that does 24 FPS at HD resolution. Could be useful if there's some form of lossless storage.

I think we'd be lucky to see 24/25 FPS with a higher bit rate, nevermind 4:2:2.

Nice FAQ, thanks! I'm now getting a little confused. Sandisk rates their cards in MB/s, while bit rates are measured in Mb/s. There's a factor of 8 between the two, right? So we're talking about 750 Mb/s for the Extreme Pro cards, and 500 Mb/s for the new Extreme cards (80 MB/s read, 60 MB/s write), or did I miss something in my thinking?

Granted, I've only graded really tiny projects, but coming as a stills shooter who only shoots in raw, going back to a compressed codec is kinda like going back to 2001 with JPEG photos. I feel a little restricted by the lack of options in post-processing. While it's currently the least of my worries (there's a ton of other things to learn in the transition to video), I still feel having the option there will be good, especially so if there is some groundbreaking software in the future, like the Aperture/Lightroom did for raw on stills.

This is a pretty amazing looking camera, and even if I were still doing purely stills, I'd still consider it. 1/8000s shutter with 1/250 flash sync, and hopefully a better EVF are all solid upgrades. The increase in burst shooting and the new defocus AF thing look interesting as well. I might get it regardless. I just hope I can afford it! On using a video stream as a way to get stills: Not until they have the software to help with sorting 30000 photos. There needs to be some way to streamline and automate this process. First company to get it right will kick off a new style of shooting stills. Unlike your suggestion of stills vs video, I don't think Panasonic should split the line. I want a camera that is capable of both stills and videos - that's why I bought the GH3! What Panasonic should do instead, is to *market* it better. Highlight the stills improvements strongly in stills oriented sites, and video in the video sites. Granted, with the GH4, it might not be so easy, since 80% of the engineering went towards improving the video side, but Panasonic can do a better job, me thinks.

It's probably a poorly thought-out reaction. First, still cameras probably outsell video cameras 10 to 1. Second, Olympus sees Panasonic's attempts which have rendered perfectly fine cameras like the GH3 "only good for video" in the eyes of many stills photographers. Also, outcry by many photographers who "don't want video." Third, see first point. Bean counters play it safe. Result? Crappy video implementation.

I still like my GH3 in many ways, but that 5 axis stabilisation is a real killer feature, be it for stills or videos. A missed opportunity for me is the lack of PDAF during video. Maybe in the next version?

I'm sure just like the Oscar nominations, there is a certain amount of politics and networking involved. No one is going to trust a startup without some serious lobbying.

As someone who started as a photographer (and is still primarily one), going back to post-processing work without raw data is like going back to 2001 digital cameras and shooting in JPEG. Sure, it's a lot more taxing with video, but the flexibility and higher quality are so worth it. As for the lifespan of 4k, mass market adoption won't happen until everything is in place. The camera is just one part of three.

Just want to say, it does - both Canon and Nikon's compact camera business are hurting, and that's costing them a fair chunk of both revenue and profit. Both companies need to adapt. Even Canon's real cash cow, their business automation division, isn't immune as paper use is decreasing every year. I don't have any particular real insight, but video is not going to save either company on its own. It needs to be something else on top of that, or something different entirely.