Quirky

Plus, none of the posters, the OP included, seem not to be bothered by the fact that neither of those two cameras are even available yet. Nobody has actual first hand shooting experience with both of them. The GH4K, or whatever it will be called, hasn't even been officially released yet. So all the commentary is opinions and speculation. Just how good, how practical or how comfortable they really are in real life and in any given task, we don't really know yet. People are just guessing, based on released and assumed specs. Speculbating on spec sheets and a few promo pictures. Kind of like oogling the silicon bits in the trailer for the soon to be released gadget p0rn film. Nothing wrong with speculating and expressing educated guesses per se, we all do it time to time. But in this case, isn't it a bit too early to make judgements about their usefulness, let alone their performance? Until none of us have actually had the chance to handle and shoot with those two, it's all just meaningless nerdy-nam-nam, isn't it. That is, other than choosing between the form factor of the camera. Whether one wishes to shoot with a camcorder-style camera or a dSLR-style camera. So what's the hurry? Life's too boring? ;)

That's a non-sequitur, actually. I never said I hate zooms. I said I don't like the excessive zooming in videos for the heck of it. It often doesn't look that good, or not good at all. Like said, sometimes one shouldn't, even if one could. It's true that coming from the world of (d)SLR stills shooting, I tend to prefer primes but I do own a zoom lens, too. In fact the camera I'm currently using for video only has a zoom lens. I've never zoomed while shooting video, though. I might, in very short increments, but I usually end up editing all the zoomy bits off my final videos. Other than that, I think two of my previous three comments today may have come out sounding grumpier than intended, for an unrelated reason. I think a nice cup of coffee will fix the mood.

The only camera I noticed looked like a classic Rolleiflex TLR, but I couldn't tell for sure which model it actually was, as I got distracted by some other more compelling details. Who cares what gear was used to shoot them. I like the way you made your point, and in this case, point taken. ;-) At least I believe that's the point you tried to make. Well done.

You can laugh as much as you wish, but that's actually telling more about you than those people you're laughing at. No offense intended, but the argument made above was quite valid. As long as our eyes don't zoom, the best, and the most natural looking zoom will be the so called sneakerzoom. Whether that zoom is being done with actual sneakers, dollies, floaters or jibs is irrelevant. Want to zoom a lot like a over-caffeinated camcorder shooter, get a camcorder. Or a zoom lens made for a camcorder style camera and camcorder style shooting. At least Sony, and possibly Panasonic, too, do make and sell zooms made for their video cameras/camcorders with E and mFT mounts. Those lenses mentioned in this thread aren't made for camcorder-style shooting, but for multi puropose shooting, for photos and video clips. Complaining that they don't work like some camcorder zooms (or that they do undesirable things when zooming very quickly) sounds a bit pointless, IMO. And? Watch almost any people talking casually in videos or in real life and you'll find them saying umm and so a lot, but that doesn't mean everyone should do so in every situation, nor does it make the umm's and so's any more desirable. Watch some more movies and even documentaries, like those nature docs from BBC and NatGeo, for example, and you'll probably see that the best looking POV moves are hardly ever made by zooming the image. For a good reason. But whatever floats your boat, doesn't matter. It's just that maybe those people whom you're laughing at may have a valid point, too. I believe that for each of those examples mentioned there are umphteen other (better) examples with no zoom. But that wasn't really the point here, was it. I agree with the notion that sometimes you see footage where zooming has been done for the sake of zooming, apparently because the shooter/director just happens to "love zooms." Like mentioned above, even though you could doesn't always mean you should. Even if someone else does. I'm not saying that one should never zoom while recording. I'm just suggesting that less is often better, even in documentaries, and if you insist on zooming (a lot) and want to minimise the annoyances, there are some special lenses for just that. Or try zooming slower and in shorter increments. Those lenses mentioned in the beginning of this thread aren't such special lenses, but that (alone) doesn't make them crappy lenses. Horses for courses. Disclaimer: I'm not a Panasonic fanboi, not even close, nor am I nowhere near being the new Stanley Kubrick, either. However you decide to zoom, and whatever gear you choose to accomplish the desired end result is fine with me. It's mostly a matter of taste, anyway, isn't it.

That sounds a bit like asking what's the best car for driving on gravel roads with all the current cars on the market. Regardless of what kind of gravel roads and where in the world are we talking about, and whether we're going to try winning the WRC championship or just go out for a picnic in the woods. I'd say the choice of gear depends on your personal preferences and needs, as well as your budget and your clients. Whether or not you're shooting just a cinematic wedding video, or a photo/video fusion piece (stills and video) with the same gear, whether or not you're the lone gunman at the venue or come equipped with a team, etc, etc. I'd say the camera brand in particular, and the lenses to a certain extent are the least critical issues to ponder about. It's mostly a matter of taste. Whatever the camera of your choice, you'll probably need at least a decent wideangle and a standard lens, perhaps a moderate telephoto, too, and whether or not those all are within one single lens or more is up to you and your personal preferences. I'd also say keep it simple, especially if you're shooting solo. Professional wedding photo/videographers are using anything from camcorders and GH3's to C300 and anything in between. I find this sentence a bit curious because it's the rest of the stuff, everything else but the camera and the lens which are likely to either make or break your wedding video. Concentrating only on cameras and lenses sounds like a ticket to disaster to me. Or to mediocrity to say the least. I'd concentrate more on choosing the right kind of gear beyond the camera and the lens, as long as you've got yourself at least a decent video shooter and a suitable set of lenses. Well, maybe it's just me, but suppose I'm a bit old-fashioned in that way. My point being that a list of popular cameras and lenses isn't really going to help in making your wedding gigs go any better. Differnt gear will suit different shooters, and the most popular ones are always those "usual suspects." The brides don't really care about your gear, nor are most of then even likely to notice some dSLR shortcomings like a little bit of aliasing, as long as your end result is compelling enough, and that you deliver what you promise. In other words, if you happen to already have a Canon 60D, Nikon 5x00, Sony a77 or whatever dSLR camera which can shoot decent but not the best possible video, don't obsess about the negatives, and just make sure your audio gear is decent enough, and that you can cook up a compelling video story in post. It really isn't about camera and lenses only.

Ah yeah, I forgot to add that after checking out the filter and lens surfaces, use a lens hood if possible. Good point. Anyway, I'd say it's still possible that shooting without the filter (or with another filter) may indeed decrease the amount of that lens flare. The two (or four) surfaces of the filter are the first glass surfaces that catch the light coming into the lens, and those surfaces are the most likely to cause additional glare and reflections. Especially the cheapest (and smudgy) ones. Sometimes it can be something as simple as a subtle layer of dust on a filter that haven't been used (and cleaned) in a while, and screwed on the lens in a hurry. I had somewhat similar looking reflections in my shots a while ago, and it was fixed simply by changing the cheapo (and not entirely clean) filter screwed on the top of the lens. I used that particular filter mainly to protect the lens from possible sea water splashes.

Yeap, could be a still photo + dolly shot, or my guess would be a 3D image of an eye/face zoomed out + dolly shot. Pretty smooth, at least in YouTube quality. PS. Looks like someone has quite a bit of cleaning up to do in the forum. Those pathetic brats with too much idle time to waste and no contacts whatsoever with the opposite sex, sigh... /OT

Try optimising the video clip before uploading to YouTube, and make sure you've got all the possible Google-style "auto-annoying" checkboxes unchecked. The less Google/YouTube can mess with your clip the better. I believe I was able to get a slightly better result after I started exporting and compressing the clip made for YouTube myself in Apple Compressor (I believe Adobe may have something similar) before uploading it. In other words, I left YouTube as little excuse as possible to touch my clip.

Nope. That looks like an ordinary lens/dirt glare. Wipe off all the fingerprint smudges and other gunk off your filter(s) and the front element of the lens with a microfiber cloth, but be careful when doing it. If your filter is clean try another one, or shoot without the filter.

As long as you're using the mic input of the camera, I don't think you'll get totally rid of the hiss. I believe it's mostly about the built in audio amp of the camera. I don't own the Sennheiser mic but I don't think it's about that. I've sometimes got the hiss with another mic and another camera. You can test that by plugging the microphone in the camera input but keeping the mic off, and then record a short clip. When you play it back, you may still hear that hiss, especially if your camera's audio levels have been set to Auto. I believe you can try minimising the hiss by NEVER leaving the audio levels to Auto (Auto Gain or something like that), and always setting the audio levels manually. Fortunately your GH3 does have manual audio levels, too. Use the VU meters of the camera and headphones to set the audio level to an optimum level before you start recording. Experiment with the two different gain levels of the mic if necessary. Nevertheless, if you wish to optimise your audio, and since you already have the Zoom, condition yourself into the habit of always using a separate audio recorder for the main sound (master audio), and use the in-camera audio input for secondary/backup audio (reference audio) only. It's a bit more work in post, but it's usually worth it. Disclaimer: I don't intend to sound patronising or anything, chances are as a reader of this blog you're already well aware of all the basics, but just in case you haven't used the dual audio setup yet, and the hiss is still bothering you.

Nice. You've got our permission to do another one. ;)

Oh don't worry, we get it. The vast majority of the readers here do get it, and the small minority who don't never will, so it's fine. Carry on. ;) The D16 style doesn't actually sound too bad. I wouldn't really mind a slightly bigger BMPCC, if it had a removable SDD inside it, a bit like in the BMCC. Both systems have their perks. The BMPCC, for example, is only about a year old now, and during the past year a number of dedicated rigs and other accessories have emerged, and the Speed Booster for BMPCC just got released. Let's give the Digital Bolex at least a year, and we'll see. Chances are there will be a similar ecosystem around it. Including a Speed Booster for Digital Bolex, a Z-Finder for DB, and so on. I think it does have a chance of becoming another success in the same kind of niche the BM cameras already are. The D16 has a user selectable mount (eventually), a sweet CCD sensor, albeit smaller than the one in BMCC, but still, they both have their own kind of quirks that will attract a slightly different kind of potential buyers. Although got to admit that $3,5k in the US, let alone elsewhere is a lot for mere mortals and aspiring/beginning filmmakers. But we'll see. Indeed. That's the point, isn't it, not the notion of whether it's better or worse than the BMCC. Like the Blackmagic cameras, this is another welcome development. Let's hope there will be another version of it later, a one that it'll have all the 1.0 features ironed out, and perhaps even with a nicer price tag. Wasn't there a disclaimer in the beginning already? Pretty convincing amount of legalese . Let's hope it's enough. :P Thanks for the hands-on feedback.

It doesn't really matter that much which brand or model mic or other gear you'll get, because in the beginning the more important question you should be concern with is how, not which brand. Don't fall into severe GAS, and don't go into hyper spending mode right in the beginning. You really don't need all that much to get started. Røde, Sennheiser, or even Azden will all do, but instead of obsessing about particular brand shotguns or other type mics to go for, make sure you get a separate audio recorder, and preferably a stereo mic for that, like the Røde Stereo Videomic Pro, for example, along with dead cats for the mics. Even though the GH3 has adjustable audio levels, don't rely on the in-camera audio alone. Use it only for reference audio and possible b-roll sound, but always make sure you'll get a proper soundscape for the final edit. If you plan on selling your film to the riders, make sure you get the sounds of the bikes recorded properly. Also pay attention to getting the ambient sounds in each location. For that you'll need the separate audio recorder and optimally placed mic. It doesn't matter if the sounds aren't always 100% real time sounds, they'll love your film if you get the sounds of the bike appear 'larger than life' in your film. You'll get away with less than ideal footage, as long as the soundtrack sounds good. A little bit of Hollywood-esque magic isn't bad for documentaries, either. After all, bikes like classic Triumphs with 360-degree crankshafts make an awesome sound even without any outrageous aftermarket pipes, so do some classic v-twins and120-degree crankshaft inline triples, and even the classic Harley sound is pretty entertaining. So it really pays off to put some effort into getting those sweet engine sounds on a separate soundtrack which you can then use to beef up the final edit. The weight is on the quality of the sound, not the loudness of it. Just don't go for wrong soundtrack for the wrong bike, though, they'll pick it up and hate you for it, even though it's pretty common in Hollywood movies. Nevermind those Japanese inline fours, they all sound the same and they're all equally boring. Speaking of following the bikes, if you plan on riding and shooting pillion, you'd better consider getting a GoPro or Sony action cam which you can attach to yourself. Forget about the sound when riding, although you can try capturing something behind your back, but chances are you'll catch just a lot of wind noise and rumble. But if you can catch a decent soundtrack of the engine, maybe with the lavalier taped behind your back, by all means try it. So all in all, apart from the GH3 and a (wide enough angle) lens, the essential gear to go for in the beginning would be a decent monopod or at least a tripod, an ND filter, (or at least a polariser), a shotgun mic, a separate audio recorder, and perhaps a separate mic and a light stand/tripod for it, and of course furry covers for all the mics. You could also invest a little bit in a basic lavalier mic, too, but not much point in going overboard with that right in the beginning. I don't think it is one of the most urgent items in your shopping list. Practise with some cheaper one first, or go for a shotgun mike, and buy at least one external audio recorder, like the Zoom H1, for example, which costs less than 100€. Good luck with the project. Shouldn't be a boring one.

To me that sounds like it might be just an internal reflection rather than an actual bug software/hardware bug. A kind of a glare reflection which appears only during very specific circumstances; when bright enough a spot light source is shining straight into the sensor from a specific (low) angle, and then the shiny surface of the sensor gets reflected back to the lens, and then some of the lens surfaces or a filter surface (or some other reflective surface) will produce this ghost glare. I've seen something (kinda) similar happen before, under certain circumstances. The easiest way to minimise it was to use a lens hood. I'd try reproducing that scenario with different bright lights straight into the lens from varying angles, trying to create various glares on purpose, and then experiment with different lenses, filters and perhaps even the Speed Booster, if possible. Chances are the stripes will only appear with certain lens and light angle (and colour) combinations. It it really is what I believe it is, I believe it will make no difference if it's a still photo or video. The reflection may just be easier to spot and reproduce in a video clip. Well, just a thought, might be worth investigating.

Generally, no. At least not within the gung-ho camera/gadget geek circles. It's never about being objective. It's all about personal opinions. As long as we're dealing with human beings with emotions, every blog post and review is always subjective. Trying to convince otherwise would be either hypocrite or deluding oneself. Everyone and every blogger has a bias, to some direction and to some extent, admitted or not, and it's totally fine. It's just natural. Unless one is a robot. Trying to be as 'objective' as possible will often result to boring, odorless, tasteless, and useless reviews. People do need at least some human reference points. Apart from spec sheets and feature lists, the rest, the actual review, is mostly personal opinions. Like the studies say, all people, which includes most bloggers, too, make their purchase and other decisions based 90% on emotions, anyway. One might as well let go of the cheesy myth of absolute objectivity, and start using one's own brain power when reading the reviews. Or learn to read. ...And all that really should be screamingly obvious, shouldn't it. I believe it is, for most. Mr. Bloom even has a disclaimer about it, in the beginning of each of his review videos and in his blog, too. Which apparently slip by unnoticed by the gadget geeks, time and again.

Noted. Edited to add: Actually, that makes it a double bummer that the E-M1 doesn't do other than 30fps and 20 or so Mbit/s.

You don't say?! :P I need neither convincing nor talking points to go for 4K right away, I just need more dough. BTW Tomekk and Lucian, did you actually read the blog post above all the way through? Just curious.

Exactly. But not only that, but they're also shooting themselves in the foot with the pricing of those dinky little toys in multiple bright colours. Double whammy. Sometimes it really puzzles me what are they thinking, or who's really calling the shots for global marketing in those companies. Not all of them, in fact not even close. Most of them are just being caught in the massive brand inertia those two giants (still) have. Canikon still have a massive marketing presence, and they control the mainstream distribution channels. Unlike most other brands, Canikon cameras are everywhere, from real camera stores to supermarkets, being stacked next to toilet paper and other such commodities, literally. Canikon is the only brand the masses see, and the only brand they recognise, and the masses buy whatever "everybody else" is buying, too. Not many of them 'dare' to buy something more 'exotic,' even if you try convince them with compelling evidence. I've seen that time and again whilst working in the industry for years. It's very similar within many other industries, too. It's just a fact of life. People are pack animals. The masses often have only the kit lens that comes with the camera, and perhaps another zoom with it. In that sense, the investment in Canikon stuff is often not much greater than it is in other brand stuff. There are just so much more of those with a few Canikon lenses than there are those with other lenses. The small group of enthusiasts, let alone video enthusiasts are such a small bunch that they barely make a blip in the radar.

Okay, here's some feedback from a slightly different angle; As long as we're talking about a camera for stills only, and given that you can (and probably will, eventually) get a Speed Booster for the BMPCC, why would you limit your options to mFT only? After all, given the 3x crop factor of the BMPCC, getting a Speed Booster for it is a no-brainer, and "small" is not exclusive to mFT only, not any longer. You also mention a zoom lens, but would it have to be an interchangeable one, or could a smart compact camera do as well? If you plan on carrying that one zoom lens only, you might as well get along with a smart compact camera, too. Even if you do want and need an interchangeable lens camera, the BMPCC doesn't really limit your choice of stills camera brand. There are adapters for other brands and lens mounts, too. So if you fancy some other brand or model more than Olysonic, go for it. Well, just a thought, or two.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Although I have to wonder whether that's really based on a real, life or death necessity in the practical life, or just about being conditioned to the (over)hype. That is, as long as stills shooting is concerned, not video. Both of these cameras are first and foremost stills shooting devices, and video is only a secondary feature, unfortunately. Nevertheless, both stills and video is mentioned in the story, so that's a valid excuse for some nit-picking, isn't it. I for one don't see the lack of IS as a matter of keeping one's sanity. I see it more like a matter of taste. More like a nice to have, rather than a must. You can get along just fine without it, no big deal. Again, as far as stills shooting is concerned. Way before the IS was invented, in the ancient times of film, people were able to get nice stills shots without any in-camera or in-lens stabilisation system whatsoever. None (or only a very few) of those people were nuts, though. They just adapted to the situation at hand. In other words, the lack of an IS system being nuts is highly subjective. As for electronic stabilisation in the sensor, I for one am actually glad that Sony hasn't got it, and fortunately one can turn it off when it's there. Anyway, the IS nit-picking and stills shooting aside, how is the EM1 with video at 25fps, does it do it? I was under the impression that it only does 30fps, regardless of the region. Which sounds like a bit of a bummer. Or how is it in real life? I don't really see the battle. Any more so than between any given dSLR's with different brands and different sensor sizes. The only thing those two have in common is the lack of a flipping mirror. Two quite different, albeit seemingly similar tools, in very different price categories. Yes. I don't think one can blame Mr. Reid alone for that sort of thing. That's what hype in the social media does, and how the internet amplifies the expectations, both realistic and unreasonable. It's not just about the A7r or the EM1, the same happens every time a hot new toy gets in the hype machine. The same was true for the Nikon Df, too, for example. Or just think about the smartphones and stuff. It's clearly visible all around the internets. This forum is not an exception, it's just a part of that big hype amp.

6df77f585c1c1f2c81d2cf6584f88f09

Yeah, doesn't make much logical sense, but that's online forums in a nutshell for you. All around the internet. Everyone is entitled to one's opinion, and that's fine. Let's agree to disagree or not to understand and move on, let's not feed yet another pointless perpetual motion machine. Thank you.

I said "Didn't look too bad to me." I'm sorry for sounding blunt, but I think that was screamingly obvious. I don't know how I could possibly have expressed it more clearly that I was only speaking for myself. I was talking in general, (clearly indicated by the use of the word "sometimes"), not about that one particular scene in that particular video. I'm quite aware of how to expose a sunny scene in photography, and sometimes photographers let certain details blow out on purpose. But that's all outrageously irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Don't read way too much into one scene of just one streaming online video clip. It's way too early. That scenery clip does not tell anything about the prowess of the new camera, it only tells us the shooter probably overexposed the scene slightly, and that's it. YouTube compression is likely to crap things up even further. As we know, pedantic people often read way too much into the details of both written and video content, regardless of the format, and then get obsessed with the irrelevant ones. Sometimes totally ignoring the bigger picture. Which seems to become visible in this thread, too. However, like I already said above, these early marketing videos are not meant (nor good) for overly pedantic viewing, so let's not. I know it's the silly season again but, don't ride the impatient wagon all through the silly season, people. Don't jump into conclusions prematurely, with minimal/poor evidence. There will be plenty of opportunities to examine this and all the other CES novelties later on, when they start spreading out into the wild. Any camera can be made to look good or bad, especially online. FWIW, I believe this new 4K consumer camcorder from Sony doesn't look too bad for what it is. Not overly exiting either, though. But we'll find out what it really is like, eventually. Meanwhile, I for one welcome this new trend of more affordable 4K gear in all shapes and formats.

Yup, sort of. Based on the photos and the way it's being displayed it appears to be what it looks like, a GH3 with a 4K badge pasted on it. It's a common thing in CES, companies are presenting official fakes, aka prototypes and mockups rather than the real thing. As long as they don't have the actual end product, they're doing image marketing and attention fishing with the mockups. The "silly season" will be long and apparently pretty lively this year. First CES, then the Japanese show a month or so later, and then there's even Fotokina in September. Plenty of time for rumours, releases, and bloody squabbles about mockups, rumoured specs and demo clips streaming online. :P