Quirky

Vahicle A has more horsepower at higher rpm on the dyno sheet than vehicle B, but when the two vehicles have a go on a race track, vehicle B wins the race with a clear margin. Peculiar, isn't it. How can that be? Maybe there's more to photo- and cinematography than one single value on the dyno sheet of the Holy Temple of Pixelpeepers. Just sayin'. Just a dumb, uneducated guess.

Well, it does indeed look quite like an old Nikon F or AI, and that was my first guess when I saw the photo. But I dropped that guess, because Andy seemed to be sure it's not Nikon in his comment above. I hope you can find someone with a Nikon body to confirm it. I can't, because the Quirky household is a 100% Nikkor-free zone at the moment. :)

Well, I've only seen footage from K-5, K-30, K-01 and K-r, (I think), and the naming of these different stabilising systems is a bit confusing at times. What I saw was an electronic stabiliser of some sort making a clip look restless and uncomfortable, like digital jello. A bit like software IS done badly, or overdone in post. Parts of the image look terrible, while some other part may look stable. Not my cup of tea, anyway. Again, I've got nothing against Pentax per se, I like the brand and many of the cameras, and have sold quite a few of them in previous life. I do hope they will live long and prosper under the shadow of the mighty Canikon. I also hope they'll come up with a new, refreshingly wacky mirrorless system. :)

Well, if/when you do have the chance, we do hope you still at least keep an eye on some of the unlikely underdogs, too. For example, right now I'd be curious to know if the latest Samsung model is still as uninspiring for video as the earlier models, or have they made some progress with aliasing, moire and such. I read that the latest NX30 has a mic in and clean HDMI out, albeit only the usual 8-bit 4.2.0. Not that I'm a Samsung fanboy, either, but the latest model with its twisty EVF could, at least in theory, make an interesting video tool, if they actually put some effort into the video side of things. Chances are they haven't done so, as their target audience seem to be the cellphone geeks and tablet nerds, but what if they did, some day. Rumours say they, too, are going to release a new top of the line model soon. Hopefully something different from the ghastly Galaxy NX. Another obvious target of curiosity is the Sony A6000, although the signs would indicate it won't be too exiting in video shooting. But who knows, what if they did something unusual this time...

Yup, unfortunately. I'm not a Pentax shooter, but what I've seen and experienced from the previous models like K5 confirms that the Pentax electronic SR works great for stills, but is useless for video. Whatever you do, turn it off for video clips. Looks like they've disabled the sensor shaker for video in the K3. Only works for stills. Could be heat and durability, too. There would be a whole lotta shakin' goin' on if it was active during video recording, too. I doubt that it would make that much difference, anyway. One of the major issues with video shooting is the same with the Nikon d5300, it's a dSLR. Nice for stills shooting, not so nice for video. I think there are many good reasons to go for the Pentax K3, but video shooting may still not be one of them. I believe Pentax/Ricoh have admitted themselves rather recently that video is not one of their highest priorities now. But suppose things can change. They may soon need a new "purple cow," á la Sony and Panasonic.

The dash cameeras in the Russian cars are there for legal reasons, not because of the traffic is particularly crazy. Well, suppose it is a bit reckless sometimes, in some areas, but the reason people are using those cameras is because without them they might be in deep financial trouble in court, depending on who's the other party in any given accident. If the dashcam videos posted online is all your view of the traffic in general is based on, and without the appropriate context, you might indeed end up with a slightly biased picture. Oh and nope, I'm not Russian, nor I'm an apologist for them, but facts don't always support the popular memes, and the internet is a great meme amplifier. I believe you guys are also confusing racism with something quite different, but that, too, is getting way OT, isn't it.

That looks quite a bit like a Minolta MD mount, or a Leica R mount, but I believe those two had only one lever, instead of two. Right now I have no lens within my reach to make sure. But if I had to guess, and if Nikon F, C/Y and Konika AR are ruled out, I'd guess it's a Minolta MD mount. At least it looks very similar. You could also try and see which mounts Tokina has made that particular lens for, and then rule out all but one or two most likely ones. I believe the two levers inside the mount are a good tell-tale sign when ruling out the possibilities.

It won't. Yup. That depends on what you want, but the obvious choice would be the Metabones Speed Booster. Other normal but good adapters (no lenses, no change in focal length/field of view) include the Novoflex Nikon G to mFT adapter, the standard Metabones Nikon G to mFT adapter, or the Fotodiox Nikon G to mFT adapter. It's a matter of taste. The Nikkor is rather big and awkward with the Panasonic and the adapter, but no doubt usable with a proper tripod. M'kay... It might, á la GM1, but I believe it's a bit too early to tell. The camera isn't out yet, and no one (here) has got a chance to delve into the nooks and crannies of the camera yet, or even read the manual.

Loosely related to this topic, Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource had an interview with Yamamoto-san of Nikon. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/14/nikon-qa-head-of-development-sees-interchangeable-lens-slowdown-as-an-aberr Partially rather usual and predictable, but there were a couple of interesting little tidbits in there, too. It's a long-ish interview, and the video talks are in the middle part. They talk about the 5300, the 1 series and a little bit of 4K, too.

Good for you, and good luck. That's all besides the point, though.

Ha. ;) You should know better. Criticising, let alone making fun of the holy Canikon is blasphemy, and therefore Thine woeful deed shalt not pass unpunished. Thou shalt face the wrath of the Canikon Congregation for at least three more pages, perhaps even nine. Other than that, sounds like the relatively nice video of the 5300 was/is just a happy accident, pretty much like the one in 5Dmk2 several years ago. It seems to be a more or less unintended bonus of the sensor tech used. I'm not a Canikon hater, other brands do dSLR's too, but I just don't see the point of shooting video with a dSLR in the first place. Its awkward, clumsy and impractical. A mirrorless or a hybrid camera with an EVF makes much more sense for video. DSLR's are still feasible for shooting stills of wildlife and other moving targets with telephoto lenses.

Ick. I do have a slight fear of heights, and watching that clip on full screen did give me some mild gut wrenches... :) But no doubt the view up there was fantastic, even at night. What that clip does not quite deliver is the wind factor, which makes the height even worse. Dangling up there on the trellis frame of the crane and looking down feels (and is) much more intense than what it looks like in the GoPro (or whichever) footage. Lucky for the fellows the frame was apparently not too wet, and the wind was not too gusty.

Well, you seem to assume a lot. :) The original question didn't seem to assume that. The post as a whole was more all over the place, mentioning online videos. Saying that the D600 is producing a more "filmic" look than GH3 (for example) would suggest that the whole concept of a filmic look is indeed very subjective, and thus almost any of the already submitted answers was more or less appropriate. In this case, it's pretty easy to assume that the filmic look perceived is related to the sensor real estate, together with a suitable lens, like Andrew already suggested. But as you're suggesting yourself, the sensor size is not all there is to it. Someone considers the look of the D600 to be more "filmic" than the look of the GH3, whilst someone else considers the look of, say, the Digital Bolex as quite filmic indeed, more so than the D600, even though the Bolex has much smaller a sensor than the GH3. Clearly those people have different views on what looks "filmic," and neither is necessarily all wrong. It's more about the other stuff beyond the obvious technical trivialities. One man's filmic is other man's digital porridge, and so on. Bottom line, perhaps there is no one simple answer. It's partially all those things you said, partially a matter of taste. Whatever one considers to look "filmic" in the first place.

Suppose that depends on whether you're a pragmatic or a pedantic. I can only speak on behalf of my own comment, obviously, but the actual numbers mentioned were hardly the point. Just an attempt to simplify the message, not to be taken literally. ...none of this really matters, well, duh. Who was your math teacher, or did you actually have one? Your math doesn't make much sense today. ;) Again, I can only speak for myself, but who has even tried to suggest anything like that? The "math" simply doesn't work that way. The percentage crackdown merely means that if you're a crappy shooter/editor, your chances of getting good, "filmic" look (whatever that means to each) are slim with any camera, and therefore the more efficient way to improve the footage is to improve yourself first, rather than just buying the fanciest gear you dare to buy. Likewise, if you're a good shooter/editor, you may be able to make even crappier gear to look more "filmic" than a bad shooter with the same gear ever will. Crappy gear is just, well, crappy gear. It may produce better looking footage in skilled hands than in unskilled hands, but it's still just crappy gear. Looks like several people are trying to say more or less the same thing, only with in different words and styles. I suppose most people here would agree that the so called filmic look is somewhat subjective, though. Okay, with that said, on with the geekspeak and bickering. :)

30% the shooter, 60% the editor, 10% the camera. The camera quotient may have a +/-10% range of fluctuation, depending on the case, but that's about it. Besides, the "filmic look" is a highly subjective concept. It has become a superficial buzzword which means different things for different people. The alleged look of any given camera depends highly on the shooter and the production value put into the video clip. Most dSLR's are pretty crappy as "filmic" cinema cameras, anyway, regardless of their sensor size. Conclusion; Not much point in obsessing about those mainstream camera bodies, especially based on YouTube videos. You are likely to achieve a much more "filmic look" with the gear you already have by simply putting more effort into lighting, shooting and editing. You'll save some money, too. To be used later on something that matters.

Well, yes and no. It's easy for us to argue either way, because none of us really know what the internal talks inside Blackmagic have been like. BM did the same with the BMCC, so it could be argued that this was to be expected, anyway. It has now become a Blackmagic tradition. :) I'm not quite convinced if the GH4 and the BMCC4K are the most likely competitors to each other, anyway. They are just the first ones to do 4K. Well, we'll see. As usual. This year the spin of "the gadget carousel" looks to be quite interesting from both stills and video side of things, and we're barely half way through February.

7. Full pixel readout vs. pixel binning, which way is it? So the GH4 is cropping the mFT sensor when recording in 4K, but is the camera really doing a full pixel readout in that cropped area, or is it pixel binning it, after all?

It's not quite that simple in real life. But surely that's a story for another thread elsewhere, isn't it. /OT

Your opinion has been noted. Thanks for your entertaining comment. It is always nice to start a lazy Sunday afternoon with a good chuckle, and on that cheerful note it's great to end this particular off-topic subthread. :) Have a nice day.

Oh it does indeed help. The percentage of hardcore gadget geeks is particularly high among the smartphone users, and to them the bigger numbers and other such buzzwords are essential. I doubt that the megapixel race is over in the camera market, either, it has just stalled for a while. First the small sensor (compact) cameras and smartphone cameras will start getting bigger megapixel counts again, and later perhaps the interchangeable lens cameras, too. But that's a topic for another discussion, isn't it.

PS. To touch another slightly OT topic a bit; Most of the usual suspects are going through some tough times and rearranging of their business models. A half of the imaging dept. of Panasonic has been sold to an Israeli spook/imager company, Sony is about to sell their computer and TV business to concentrate more on sensors, cameras and cellphones. Apparently even the few remaining traditional camera companies are also redefining their core businesses behind the scenes. Their old brand inertia won't roll them forward forever, so they'll have to come up with something new soon, or crumble away. It may all mean both good and bad for us. Good in sense that the manufacturers may have to give more focus and better products to us, the enthusiast and pro market, as the mainstream market is saturated, commodified and smartphone-ified, and the high end pro market alone is simply too small for the industry giants. Bad in the sense that some players may exit the stage at some point, or some good product lines may end up being cancelled, if/when the big companies go to the usual panic/risk avoiding mode. But we'll see. Perhaps the GH4 is one of the first samples of mostly the good impact of the changes, rather than the bad.

Yeah, I know a thing or two about the stills world, but apparently you missed the whole point of my previous comment. I thought it was pretty obvious, without any need for the usual round of pedantics. But nevermind. The "8K" reference was irrelevant. You can come up with almost any other buzzword in the place of the 8K one I used, and it wouldn't change anything. What people need and what they want are two different things. The usual suspects will come up with new improved shiny things and new buzzwords in few year cycles, and when they do, we will start wanting the new gadgets and we will buy them. Whether we really need them or not. When we want something, we easily come up with a need for it. Claiming "nobody is ever going to buy/need more than this or that" is one of the surest ways of getting a record in the history of irony, in not so distant future. One famous Bill Gates quote comes to mind, which went something like "nobody is ever going to need more than 16 megabytes" or something along those lines. Which gave people good chuckles embarrassingly soon. Same was probably true when megapixels were counted in single digits. People are notoriously bad at estimating (guesstimating) things, but they are insatiable when it comes to wanting more stuff, better stuff, more and better stuff, or just more. This is not about hating technical progress. I for one embrace the arrival of 4K with open arms, especially affordable 4K. I, too, want better stuff, not necessarily more stuff. But the original point of my original comment was to give a deliberately cynical reply to a (possibly rhetorical) question about how the GH4 is going to change the industry, or how is the industry going to react to it. I said I don't think the GH4 is going to change the game much, if at all, because this is just the beginning of another cycle of technical advancements. The others will follow suit eventually, with their own versions of the same 4K theme. Which people will buy, too, as usual. It won't happen overnight, though. Just wait and see. I think it's also quite obvious that the cycles of technical advancements and product upgrades will not stop at 4K. Again, what exactly the next buzzword will be is irrelevant, but it will come. Within a few years after 4K hits mainstream. Then the good old carousel spins yet another cycle, and we'll pay up. I'm not against that, just stating the obvious.

Quite the contrary, Mr. Reid. Perhaps I'm just "old" enough to have some perspective. ;) (Re: my slightly cynical comment in another, now locked thread) In fact, I'm pretty sure most of us here will be drooling, if not quite obsessing over the 8K GH6 and the rivalling products from the usual suspects after a few years, and soon after that, many of us will be reaching for our wallets (again) and trading our still great GH4's for the new and even better 8K version. Then, a few years after the launch of 8K it all starts all over again, as the next generation... you get the picture. :) As for the GH4, I'm glad if the street price will be no more than 2k€ from the start, which would put it within the reach of mere mortals, too. I doubt that I'll actually go for one any time soon, though, if at all. I'd rather wait and see what the other options from other players like Sony will be like, and perhaps from Blackmagic, too. Eventually. Until then, the dodgy ol' HD will have to do.

The same way it always does. Like it did a few years back when HD was the latest buzzword. After two or so years the same cycle will spin again, only with a new buzzword. In 2016 CES, NAB, CP+ and Photokina it'll be all about 8K, but the rest of the script will be pretty much the same. The first actor to enter the stage and other such minor details may change each time, obviously, but the plot remains the same. Meanwhile, between each round, we the suckers buying audience will pay up. That's how the cookie crumbles.