Quirky

Yeah, neiter have I. I asked about the same thing in the other a6000 topic but apparently no one outside Sony knows, so far, not even Mr. Reid.

I would take the a6000, especially for a more video-centric use. But that's just me, and in your case, it doesn't matter what I'd take, or what anyone else would. All these "cheap" cameras have some shortcomings, usually different ones in different models. They all are likely to show some moire and other digital artefacts at some point, so there's not much point in obsessing about it. In the case of the a6000 the most obvious shortcoming would be the lack of a mic input, apart from the one in the fancy hotshoe. But whatever that shortcoming is, you just find ways to work around them, and try making the best out of your choice, whichever it may be in your case. You could agonise for months over the bits, knobs and specs of each camera, without getting any footage done. They all deliver decent footage in the right hands, but none of them deliver perfect footage. The nasty truth is, you may not even know what the real shortcoming of each given camera is in your case, until you have actually shot with one for more than just a few minutes. The spec sheets or even the online test videos are not likely to tell you that. So my real answer would be just pick the one you fancy, the one that feels nice in your hand and the one you can afford, and then just go shooting with it. Your money, your decision. You have no obligation to justify your choice to anyone, apart from those with whom you live and share a household budget, perhaps. Seeking assurance from peer acceptance online is waste of your time.

In theory, yes, and as long as the classic Nikkors are concerned. In practical terms things may not be quite as rosy. Attach an old manual Nikkor onto a D5300, for example, or a modern Nikon G glass onto a 'dumb' tube adapter with no electronics or aperture dimming dial and you'll probably see what I mean. Besides, Pentax K mount is pretty much the same as ever, only with minor mechanical and major electronic tweaks, just like the Nikon mount. The Sony A mount, aka Minolta AF mount has been the same ever since the introduction in 1985, too. Ten years from now the Nikon dSLR mount will be discontinued, too. The old manual Nikkors will then keep circulating in the used market until they wear off, just like the classic Contax and other ones. The newer electric ones may become obsolete sooner. ...To operate both autofocus and aperture. FWIW, I'd vote for waiting for the ohter speedboosters, too, but the choice is up to him, anyway. His likes, his wallet, his decision.

Your opinion doesn't matter to their target audience. Which apparently doesn't include you, and that's a good thing. Not commenting on the behalf of DXOMark, but in a way it might make sense. Think of some fixed lens cameras where the sensor and the fixed lens have been tweaked into an optimum pair. Suppose that would be more obvious if, for example, Sony actually did come up with the rumoured curved sensor. Then not introducing the sensor would not make much sense, would it. On the other hand, even back in the day, medium format lenses needed less resolution to do a sharp, good looking images, and I believe many lenses made for smaller formats like 35mm film would have better resolution, to cope with the smaller projection area. Then there are the Olysonic mFT lenses, whose performance depends on the software tweaks, at least on the wider end of the focal length scale. Take away the sensor and the software tweaks, and they distort like glass cut off a bottom of an old Coke bottle. I don't know if DXOMark takes that into account but, in literal sense, the sensor would be a variable in that case, too. But that's enough nit-picking, because the point was that DXOMark do have their own target audience who buy gadgets based mainly on their scores. This has nothing to do with the alleged or real performance of the a6000, though. I don't even know what the a6000 score is.

Apparently the music industry could use a similar 'revolution' that started shaking the book publishing industry about six years ago. The major publishers could dictate the rules and compensations to the authors pretty much the same way, but they no longer have the monopoly. Self-publishing has evolved from (alleged) vanity publishing into a viable, and often more profitable way of publishing for the authors than signing a deal with a big publisher. The publishers can no longer dictate the publishing and distribution deals. The gatekeepers have become obsolete, as there are now multiple different gates into the land of publishing. The new model works for both newcomers and already established authors with millions of readers. There are several fairly well known case studies ever since circa 2008, where, for example, an 'unknown' young aspiring female author has become a huge hit without any help by the publishing houses and made a million or more by self-publishing, starting from scratch. Meanwhile, some already established authors have walked away from ample six figure book advance deals offered by major publishers, because they thought they can do better without them. They did, and still do. There are also a number of case studies where an author may get along nicely with a combination of self publishing and publishing via a major publisher. Even the creator of the Harry Potter saga, J.K. Rowland, whose first Harry Potter book originally got rejected by all the major publishing houses but ended up making millions for both herself and much more for her publisher, has come up with her own publishing house, even though she is still cooperating with a big publisher, too. I know the music industry isn't quite the same, but perhaps similar enough to benefit from a similar 'revolution.' Whatever Google is up to is not likely to be the best interest of the artists in mind, anyway. Their interest is only in snarfing the next mass-delivery channel before the likes of Amazon and Apple come up with their business models. Just like with the search business and social media business, what they end up serving is a commodity to advertisers, not a quality music channel to the listeners and filmmakers. Not necessarily a major problem. Case in point, again, the book publishing industry. Now there are a number of aggregators between the major distributors and the artists. Amazon being an example of a company being both an aggregator, publisher and distributor. Apart from doing it all by themselves, they do also take in work of artists carried by other aggregators like Smashwords and others. Which, in turn, can and do offer the artists they represent to all the major retailers like Amazon, Kobo, B&N, Apple iBooks, Sony and so on, and also through their own online stores. Furthermore, the authors can and do hire their own agents, editors and proof readers, and the system works. The change in the industry has already resulted to a whole new businesses, where independent editors and agents have started new businesses serving the self-publishing authors. In some cases even some of the traditional publishing houses have started offering their own editing services as separate packages. Perhaps the exact same model that emerged in the book publishing industry wouldn't work in music industry, but something along the same lines just might. Musicians could, at least in theory, make separate deals for streaming, digital download and printed album sales, too, if the traditional model was challenged by the artists themselves. In such a scenario, the artists would also have the power to decide wether or not they wish to licence their work for filmmakers, advertisers and others for their visual work. It doesn't have to happen via Google and littering everything with advertising. Native or direct. I know Google are still making a lot of money by auctioning online ads, but (the promise of) monetising everything with online advertising is a bubble that is likely to burst eventually, anyway.

That's the irony of the whole online business and the great levelling effect of the internet, isn't it. When everybody is a superhero/cinematographer/etc, no one is. When everything gets commoditised, nothing has any value, and no one makes a dime. Only those who control the delivery chain make some profit. Hence Google and their plans for YouTube. The phenomena is not limited to the music industry, though. Most businesses mistook and then embraced the internet as the new bonanza for mass marketing, only to find the market becoming more fragmented, niche'd and worst of all, commodified than it ever was, even before the age of recorded music. All in all, both businesses and the consumers got what they bargained for. I know I don't have a solid counter-argument for this (yet), but that sounds like a non-sequitur to me. In relation to the previous discussion about the need for a new licensing system, I don't see something like this as a feasible, or at least ideal solution. Especially so as I'm not a Googlebot (un-critical Google fangeek). Things might evolve into something like that, but I hope not. No disrespect intended, but that sounds like wishful thinking to me. Including the whole sentence, not just for the highlighted part. The highlighted part just being the most obvious bit, controversial even today. But we'll see, soon enough.

The Nikon version is a Nikon G equivalent, isn't it, which means it has no physical aperture ring, right?

Thank you for proving my point. This is all the more reason for not externalising one's camera purchasing decision to the online forums, and not conforming to the online acclamations. Like said, in the case of the GM1 of all cameras it really is essential. My comment was also based on first hand experience. I don't do spec sheet reviews. I just didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious, like the smaller lenses. If your experience has been totally different, well, consider yourself lucky and, thanks again for making my point. Exactly, that's the way to go, especially in the case of the GM1. Just pick one that feels right in your hand. ;) It's not just the size, but a combination of factors related to it. At some point the small size and the feature set dictated by it may become a nuisance, rather than an asset. But it's all highly subjective, it may not concern you, and our comfort levels, our personal preferences, our eyesight, the size of our hands, our motor skills etc, are all different. That's why a trip to a shop to see the camera in person is much more important than any of our comments here in the online forums. What we say here doesn't really matter, so pay no attention to us. :P

It's not a mathematical theory cooked up by geeks. The origin of it is mechanical. This animation may explain more than a bunch of words. By all means read the Wikipedia entry, too. It does make sense, once you look into it. Once you understand the principle behind the rule, you can start experimenting and breaking it, and to answer your second question, just try it yourself, make your own experiments, as well as examine those examples mentioned above. FWIW, investing in an ND filter is not a bad idea, in case you haven't already. Sticking with the 180 degree shutter angle is generally not a bad idea, but feel free to experiment and come up with compromises that work for you.

I agree with Julian, and whilst they are both nice cameras, it's worth keeping in mind that the GM1 is tiny! I think it's absolutely essential that you go to a store and try the camera in your hands before you decide to buy one. It may even be a bit too small for average male hands, let alone large hands. Put any lens beyond 50mm into it, and it will become front-heavy and a bit awkward to hold and shoot with. It may also be a bit impractical as the only system camera. But in case you're already invested in the mFT system or need a pocketable system camera, well, why not. Provided that you get along with the ergonomics. Remember also that it's "only" 24/25p, @28bps AVCHD. Probably not a biggie, but worth keeping in mind. Other than that, it's a fascinating little gadget. But if it's your only camera, the a6000 would be a more practical choice. But by all means go and try it out in the shop first, too. As for the request of suggesting which of those two is a better choice for you, that is something you just have to figure out yourself. Your preferences, your money, your decision.

Video-wise, Canon already have something, namely their Cx00 line. Which, if not 'superior,' is decent enough, anyway, and 'mirrorless' enough. Albeit rather pricey, they're not quite a thing of the past yet. Today's GH4 hype is not likely to change that. All Canon have to do is to carry on updating and improving those, perhaps with another new model. Maybe a seriously re-designed EOS-M line for the mainstream market would be a nice addition. Their dSLR's are another story. As long as those are concerned, yes, I'd agree, there is not much point in investing in those any longer.

Seriously?

I believe the US prices announced are usually without local sales tax, so the IRL difference is likely to be somewhat smaller. But still, oh well, such is life. Maybe the Asian companies are shamelessly taking advantage of the currently high Euro or something. Yeap, 5-axis or not, if it's all software, I believe the most important feature of it will be the ability to turn it off. But I agree about the notion of holding further judgement before actually seeing the thing IRL, and/or getting more real life samples from reliable sources. That aside, it does indeed sound like an interesting pocket camera. Unfortunately the Canucks didn't make it clear in their video, but in case there is a nice and sensible way to focus and adjust the exposure manually in video mode, I might seriously consider getting one. Although it is a bit pricey, even for a serious compact. Get a small and cheap L bracket and a Zoom H1, and you'd still be fairly pocketable with decent sound. Maybe even with the small new Atomos Ninja Star. An overkill, perhaps, but still a highly portable one man video production system. The stealth factor might suffer a bit with all those attached, though. PS. If I didn't have an intern to walk beside me with a Ninja, I'd probably just attach the recorder on the bottom of the camera with a double male 1/4 screw adaptor. The recorder would also work as a balancing weight reducing the shakiness of the handheld footage, even though it would look rather silly. A bit like the brick under the GH4. :)

Well, suppose he/it could be a troll, or maybe he's just another harmless fanboi. Not much different from the equally annoying Nikon and Panasonic fanbois whose similar antics and topic littering all over the place doesn't seem to bother you nearly as much. I'm not taking sides, just observing. Your participating in some nerdy bickering between the fanboys isn't really improving the slowly degrading signal to noise ratio of this forum, is it. You start sounding like one of the bickering gadget geeks. Post like this tend to suggest as much... ;) FWIW, most of your readership do have their own bullshit detectors, too, you know, so no worries. :)

No doubt the confidence of your conclusion is based on extensive first-hand shooting experience with the A7s, isn't it.

Hormones? Surely you mean nerdmones. ;)

Well duh, that much should be screamingly obvious. ;)

Okay, with another look and thought, the simplified pricing looks pretty reasonable. Let's hope the project will take off, with plenty of musicians opting in.

Speak for yourself only. This is not likely to be the end of Vimeo. It's just a little bit of re-profiling. I for one have liked plenty of video with no copyrighted music tracks in them, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. The muting of the videos with copyrighted music used without permission is not the problem, but the way it is being done is. It can harm even those with their very own soundtracks. Not much point in using the YouTube videos as an example of anything. There is no free lunch, not even in YouTube. The kids in YouTube can get away with the videos because Google take care of the tab. They put links and ads on the videos with copyrighted music. Also keep in mind that in YouTube/Google, the users uploading content are not their clients. The users are the product, the 'cattle' whose metadata and audiences are being sold to the paying clients, mostly advertisers. I don't think Vimeo has the the budget or the might of Google to match their policies. Which is not entirely a bad thing. In a way Google is partially guilty for the kind of controversy visible also in this thread, where especially the younger generations have become clueless about copyright issues and common sense regarding copying and sharing in general. But that's another story, and I don't wish to steer this thread even more off-topic. Suffice to say that YouTube is probably not an ideal example of (or excuse for) anything. Just take a look at the most successful aspiring and pro filmmakers in YouTube, as well as in Vimeo. I don't think you'll find any of them using copyrighted music in their clips without permission. It's a non-issue, really. But even they might, with permission, if it was made easier to do, with a new system of some kind, as described by many commenters ever since the beginning of this topic.

Versatility & Quality Not just 'cinematic' or hipster pop&poll. Sometimes I may need more ethnic stuff, percussion only, solo instruments, and/or different variations of the same theme. With real, acoustic instruments! Short musical sound effects would be welcome, too. Packages & Bundles In certain projects, I might want to have a set of different soundtracks, like two different variations of the same theme, as per described above, along with shorter pieces for highlights or other key elements, cuts etc. There could be another bundle price for a music bundle. Suppose that's the second best thing for collaborating with a composer/musician directly. For documentaries, short feature films / interviews for small company/entrepreneur, non-profit and municipal clients, commercial / online ads for the same kind of clients, personal and other non-profit projects, demoreel, that sort of things. The pricing seems fairly reasonable. Although I wouldn't mind if there was even more versatility between the personal work on zero budget on YouTube / Vimeo (non-commercial) and the features, documentaries and short films with a crew. What if there was yet another category, like For documentaries and short films without a crew, (non-commercial), or something along those lines? Another addition could be the music bundles, separate from the single track prices. One thing is for sure, though, with or without these, the amount of work would indeed be significant, and it'll likely take a significant amount of time, too. Good luck if you do decide to go for it.

But what about when recording externally via the HDMI port? Did you ever test that? You don't mention anything about that in this review. That would be one of the more interesting tidbits about the video performance. Hopefully we'll learn more about that later on.

Yeap, it's a matter of taste. I've been hauling film SLR's and dSLR's and lenses of varying sizes for ages, and got used to them. I don't own the D3 but something of the same caliper, size and weight-wise. But got to admit, after having used some of the smaller new cameras, too, I find myself feeling reluctant to carry the typical dSLR arsenal, if I don't have to. If I had to carry around a big, bulky and very expensive dSLR, I might as well go for a medium format camera.

Just be careful what you're promising to your clients, and what you upload to Vimeo. Or elsewhere online, ftm. The Vimeo policy change doesn't really change much. Yup. Although doing that hasn't really been okay before, either, you know. 1. Use royalty free music. You can buy whole albums of royalty free music online, as well as buy an appropriate licence of single songs from the sites like Music Bed, Triple Scoop, Song Freedom, Premium Beat, etc, etc. Some stuff is even free. 2. Change your policy for your wedding shoots. Make it clear to the client right in the first meeting, and put it in writing that you don't do music requests, and that you'll always pick the soundtrack music yourself. Your video and its sountrack is a complete package, your piece of art. Ask what kind of music they like, not specific performers or songs, just genres, moods, that sort of thing. Take clues from their stories, and so on. Then just search those aforementioned sources and pick a track or two. As for the wedding video that already has copyrighted music in the soundtrack, do like varicam said, hand it over to the couple in a USB stick, for example, or maybe in a DVD, which they'll less likely copy and burn for others. I'd also say do not just give them the plain USB stick or a plain DVD, buy a beautiful gift box with a custom made USB stick or a DVD with a printed label. That is, if you're not doing that already. You could also add a quick disclaimer in the beginning of your film, a bit like the copyright notice in rental disks, stating that this film contains copyrighted music and is intended for private viewing only, copying and distributing it is not allowed. You know, the usual legalese, for few seconds, but make it stylish, and not too obtrusive. Just to cover your own posteriore. if the clients wish to have a film that they can share to their family and friends, just edit another version with royalty free music and charge some extra. I don't usually do weddings, but I've done a few. In one case I did hand over an edited video with some copyrighted music, and I did it pretty much like described above. In that case I already knew the couple, and I knew I wouldn't have to worry about copies ending up in open circulation and for bigger audiences.

That reminded me of a somewhat similar pondering several years ago in a car/tech magazine about the many different cars, each with their own nice features, but not in the same car. The end result of that thought process was a car with the front of a Mercedes and the rear of a Citroen, or something along those lines. That would be a nice car no doubt, but with one little caveat, that car wouldn't go anywhere. Unless you pushed it yourself, or had nothing but downhill ahead of you. :) Furthermore, if we shoved all those features from all those different cameras into one body, the body would probably have to be as big, if not bigger than the Nikon D4s, and it would probably be as heavy and expensive, too. Just saying. ;) Not that I would mind such a dream camera with all or most of the goodies from those models. Provided that it wasn't as big and expensive as the D4s. Ho hum, who cares. Canikon Scmanikon. They've been stalling the industry long enough already. They'll join the party again eventually, or become (even more) obsolete. Oh and btw, what about another dream machine with a slightly different twist? -the CCD sensor and guts of a Digital Bolex -the price point of a BMCC or BMPCC -the looks of the Fuji, Sony or Panasonic top of the line model Wouldn't mind having something like that, either.

Neither. It's something many of us would like to do but won't, because it's difficult or impossible to do without any copyright infringement. Even the concept of fair use is currently controversial and unclear, so we might as well avoid it, too. Unless our video is for private or limited audience only. Having said that, I do agree about the basic theme and the basic dilemma. In other words yes, I think that the copyright of the artist should obviously be respected but, I also think that the system and the whole music industry has become partially outdated and should be updated somehow. Back in the day it may have been simpler, as there were very few filmmakers with big public audiences and high production value films with proper soundtracks. The rest of the camera toters were just a bunch of harmless hobbyists with very small or nonexistent audiences. This kind of problem didn't quite exist. There was a big barrier and a bunch of professional gatekeepers between the publishing artists, aspiring artists and the audience. Not just within music and film industry, but also in book publishing. Today, ever since the internet became mainstream, the barrier has more or less gone, and the amount of people with the potential for large, global audiences has exploded. Therefore a big number of aspiring artists now have an unprecedented chance for fulfilling their creative dreams, and creating quality content and offering it directly to their audience. But some of the tools for that are still missing or outdated. Therefore the system should be updated, too. There should be a new, improved and more flexible system where the music licensing conformed better to today's world and demands. It should be more flexible and versatile, without an army of unnecessary gatekeepers, but also without ignoring any party's copyright. Even aspiring filmmakers should have an easier system to legally license music, directly from the artists or via their agent, and thus with mutual consent. I believe quite a few musicians would already understand that any legally lisenced video in Vimeo would be a 'free' ad for the artist, and likely to lead to more sales of the music. A win-win scenario. Especially if the artist has the chance to opt out of the system if s/he wanted. Pretty much like in iTunes and other online music stores. Either you opt in to the new licensing system or you don't. It's the artist's choice. Speaking of opting out, looks like even the last curmudgeons like AC/DC have finally started seeing daylight and joined iTunes store, as the traditional system is no longer working as it did yesteryear. Another case in point, the book publishing industry. In book publishing the winds of change have already been stronger, and the old system with its army of gatekeepers has crumbled. Today a lot of both well known published authors and new independent authors alike are doing better as self-published authors than they did with the traditional big publishing houses. Some big name authors have walked away from seven figure book deals with traditional publishers, because they think they don't need the big publishers any longer, and they do well without them. Which has turned out to be true. The stigma of self-published author has long gone, too. As for the aspiring authors, a lot of them now have a chance to find their own audience, and many of them can make a living that way, depending on the quality of their work. They can now decide to sell their ebooks directly if they so choose, and still make a deal about a printed version of their book if they want to. They can also sell the rights for a movie script, too, or write it themselves to the movie producer directly. Or do all that via a third party aggregator, or go with Amazon. They can hire their own graphic artists for the book cover, they can buy a license for a photo from a photographer, they can hire or collaborate with proof readers and editors themselves, they can also do their own marketing the way they want, all without the traditional publishers. Something that was impossible for them less than a decade ago. It was not that there was no audience willing to pay for their books, but because the traditional publishers wouldn't bother to publish most of them. Eventually time and technology found a way around them, and now the publishing industry is in trouble. The same may happen in the music industry soon, too. People are still willing to pay for music, and people are also willing to pay for things like sync licence, too, if only it was made easier, more affordable, or just possible. It's bound to happen some way, anyway, and both the big audience and the creatives will find a way to bypass the old archaic system, eventually. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement or theft. That is another topic altogether.