Quirky

That sounds great, but it also sounds more like a GH5, the successor for the consumer/prosumer DSLM model GH3, rather than the AG-GH4(K) (for $3k) pro video camera that was rumoured here (too) earlier. Well, whatever the case, and whatever it will be called, that sounds logical, too, because like Sony, Panasonic have 4K TV sets and other consumer goodies to sell, so pushing a 4K-capable camera to the consumer market asap makes sense. It's good to see affordable 4K cameras hitting the market this year.

I got to play with the GM1 in a showroom yesterday. Man that thing is tiny! It's even smaller in real life than in the photos. :) It indeed is quite pocketable, but I believe it may even be too tiny for me, not just for my average sized man hands, but my alarmingly middle-aging eyes, too. You do need a handle or a rig of some sort for video. But it is a cool little toy, though. Anyway, I think choosing between the GM1 and the GX7 is a bit like comparing cherries to grapefruits. Quite different things for different tastes and different uses.

Didn't look too bad to me. Sometimes some blown highlights are quite okay. We do it on the stills side all the time. No biggie. Besides, it's just a compressed YouTube video, and the first one shown. Quite often the first YouTube videos are not showing what the cameras can really do. The shooters may not even be super skilled pros. Those promo videos are not made for overly pedantic viewing.They do know the limitations of the online format. They're just there to trigger an emotional response. A shopping feeling. It's just a friggin' YouTube promo video, for 4K's sake! :) Don't go pixel peeping the first dodgy online video you see, fellas. Surely there will be plenty of opportunities to measurebate on the CES novelties as they hit the blogosphere and the store shelves. It happens with every new camera, the first clips out there are often not made by experts. Not bad. Full pixel readout, native 4K, XAV-S codec rather than AVCHD, $2k rather than 3K or 4K, etc. Looks simple and straightforward enough to me. I think it's the first ever camcorder that has perked my interest at least a bit. I think the Sony 1'' (or whatever) full matrix readout sensor is pretty good for this kind of cameras, not just for the RX10. Not too exited about the lens, though. I agree that the RX10 lens would have been a nicer option. Anyway, hopefully this camera, as well as the the new action cam (#want) and the RX10 are signs of a much more interesting and ballsier future from Sony. There will be some new A and E mount cameras coming soon, too, to replace some SLT models. Will they have the same kind of goodies including 4K, only with a larger sensor, nah, I doubt it. However, I do wish that this is indeed a sign of a new trend.

Apart from Novoflex, there are also some other high-quality adapter makers who specialise in adapting PL and C mounts for the usual suspects, for example, but I don't remember the names right now, and have no personal experience for those, yet. But I bet you can find comments, links and maybe even tests about them online, like from the blogs of some of the "socially active" filmmakers like Philip Bloom and Vincent Laforet, for example. But the Novoflex ones are the best of the generic DSLR bunch, anyway, and the Fotodiox ones, for example, are pretty nice substitutes for less money. Oh and nope, the adapters won't damage the camera, unless you do something utterly stupid. The larger tolerances are a quality and comfort issue, not a safety issue.

As long as we're talking about traditional (analog) film, the non-exposed time between the frames is easy to explain, to block the film port and advance the next frame in place for the next exposure. The shutter and the film advancing mechanism were basically a bit like a piston, rod and the crankshaft, in lack of a better analogy right now. That's the origins of the thing, and there is a nice explanation for the digital version of it, too, somewhere, but I don't know which words to search it for. But there is at least one very nice and visual explanation for the whole frame rate and shutter speed/angle online, and once you see it, you more or less get it right away, much better than with words only. The portion of time not captured will have an effect on what the row of still images streamed before our eyes will look like. Apparently our brains have an internal "frame rate" as well, and apparently the sensation of smooth motion picture is a matter of both learned expectations (cinema) and our internal frame rate. I'm sure some expert in that particular field will be able to give a much better explanation, though.

How is it easier for the Macbook? Because of the AVCHD, or am I missing something here? I wouldn't worry too much about the easiness or toghness of the codec, because that is pretty easy to bypass. Just invest about 30 bucks or €ugenes to a small converter app that will convert the AVCHD (or other codecs, too) .MTS files to uncompressed .mov file, which will then be much easier for the editor and Macbook. Not any harder than the MP4. No need for more memory or processor power just because of some crappy compressed codec like AVCHD.

Yeap, quite interesting. Suppose the Nikon V1 could indeed be a nice toy along with the other toys. I could do some cool high def. B-roll or even highlights with it, to be added to my regular footage shot with other cameras. Or, I could even stitch up an entire piece of 4K burst film, like people here have done. I wonder if the "1" in the Nikon 1 really stands for 1 second films? :P Anyway, I checked the specs of the Nikon 1 models and looks like they use EN-EL15, 20 and 21 batteries, the EN-EL20 in J1 being the same as the one in BMPCC. I'm not too familiar with Nikon batteries any longer, so does that mean that only the J1 battery (and charger) is compatible with the BMPCC? Is the one in V1 (and V2) indeed different shape and size? Or are the batteries and chargers the same size, but only different capacity? If they're all different, that would be a bit of a bummer. What I'm obviously curious about is whether not the V1 could make a nice compatible companion to a BMPCC, sharing the same batteries and charger. Another question that I wish the current V1 owners here could answer is if the regular HD video quality of the V1 is any good? Usable, in HDSLR terms, even G6/GH3 territory, or the usual jagged track to moireland? Please feel free to post links to your regular 1080 videos if you happen to have some.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way a slo-mo expert, but I believe this one could be seen like a more generic question. The way I see it, the shutter speed is relevant to the frame rate you are shooting with, and keeping the 180-degree shutter related to the actual shooting frame rate is likely to produce more natural/pleasing looking end result, slo-mo it in post or not. I still consider myself a mere novice or apprentice, but I'm also old school, always shooting with fixed 180 degrees (or 17x,xx) shutter related to the frame rate, like the film cameras did. Regardless of the frame rate, the shorter the shutter speed, the more stroboscopic ('staccato') the movement will become, (obviously), and there will be less motion blur, too. A blurry slo-mo usually doesn't look that pleasing, but one could, and no doubt should, do one's own experiments, whenever the gear allows that. My recent camera (that I've just sold) only shot with 25p but, I'd imagine using a 360-degree shutter angle related to the actual shooting frame rate might give you footage that doesn't look "quite right," even if/when you slow it down. If my next camera has 50p, I'll do my own experiments but, I doubt that using three-sixty for slo-mo will yield any better results than shooting the old-fashioned way.

Yup, that's pretty normal, for cheap adapters. The more/most expensive ones never, or hardly ever have any (low tolerance) wiggle. The cheaper, simpler adapters may also lack some small parts that apply pressure against the lens mount, lock the lens in place and thus eliminate all wiggle. But in short, if you wish to get rid of the wiggle and other possible performance woes, buy better adapters. The better ones are more expensive for a reason. The Novoflex ones are generally good and often considered the best ones, and it shows in the price. The second best level, according to my own experience, would be the Fotodiox ones, which are not quite as pricey, but still better than most of the cheaper ones. Adriano Lolli's Coma ones aren't apparently too shabby, either, but for those I have no personal experience. All the rest belong to the lower level category, where you mostly get what you pay for, and getting a good one is a matter of luck, and perhaps lens mount type. The simplest screw mount ones are usually safer cases. I've sometimes bought those dirt cheap (if you buy them from HK) ones, too, and at least one of those that I still have has that typical wiggle, whereas another similar, but much more expensive one does not.

Yeah... That is indeed good enough a reason for me to consider resetting any new year's resolutions for a new one, and just one; to start saving dough for the D16. Now I almost hope that it won't become available in Europe too soon. :P

You are still entitled to your opinion. ;) Unfortunately this particular subthread regarding one's personal preferences for filter usage has nothing to do with math or classes, although it does seem to have something to do with binaries. That is, with a binary (I/O, on-off, either-or) way of thinking. In real life, however, there are often more than one way to reach a certain end result, and whatever style you prefer, or whichever method you consider to be the only right(eous) way to get there is up to you. It's all perfectly fine with me. Like I said above, not much point in bickering about matters of taste and our personal preferences. Now that we've all established yours, I hope we can just move on towards new endeavours. Along with the new year. Happy New Year! :)

I doubt anyone can cook up such statistics. It would indeed be hard to measure the usage. I also believe that both Mr. Reed and Mr. Damphousse have a point above, and perhaps the "truth" hovers somewhere in between. :) Nevertheless, looks like the overall "video-awareness" is slowly increasing among the masses, too, and the recent hype among the enthusiasts is likely to push it further. To carry on with the reviewer example used above, only a few short years ago most camera reviewers around the blogosphere couldn't tell a rolling shutter from a leaf shutter, most of the mainstream still can't, but especially during the year that ended last night, clearly more of them have started noticing (and reporting) even things like jaggies and moire, rather than just repeating the written feature list of the camera, and then carrying on to more important stuff like wifi features. You can sometimes see the progress by reading reviews written a couple of years ago, and ones written recently. Meanwhile, the video features of the mainstream models haven't really changed all that much. In other words, that could be a sign of progress, couldn't it. So chances are that during 2014 the trend will carry on and grow stronger, with more and more people wanting better video tools. Well, we'll see.

I believe it's because of your somewhat unfitting choice for a camera to illustrate your point. Using the Df as an example is rather distracting in this case, for several reasons. You could as well had used D600 or almost any other recent Canikon DSLR as an example, and made your actual point more clearly. I don't think there is much disagreement about your actual point among the video/cinema enthusiasts here, though, and I do sort of understand the use of the Df to illustrate the point. I'm just saying another model might have been less distracting. I think it's also a bit unfair for the Df, albeit not unfair for Nikon in general. After all, one could argue that what's the point of coming up with a typical DSLR with mediocre, or "half-assed" video features slapped on it? If not doing it well, why bother at all? The half-assed features are distracting clutter, mere marketing gimmicks. Or, why put good video features in a DSLR in the first place? DSLR's with their flippy-flappy mirrors are rather awkward and unnecessarily clumsy as video cameras to begin with. Mirrorless designs would be a more natural choice. Whichever way one wishes to stylise them. Therefore one could argue that the Df, as a traditional DSLR, targeted at a small but well defined audience of stills-only shooters, actually makes more sense than most of their other DSLR models with mediocre and gimmicky video features. Those other models are the real hipster models, trying to lure the masses with feature lists as long as possible, no matter how useful those features actually are. So in a way they [Nikon] do have a point (or they're just being honest); mediocre video in a DSLR could indeed be seen a mere distraction, and you might as well leave it out, at least from a vintage style model like the Df. To offer proper video, they might as well come up with mirrorless models that are more suitable for that, anyway. Why they still choose not to do so, well, that's the actual point here, isn't it, and the fact that the Df has no video whatsoever, let alone gimmicky video, is irrelevant. I think the no mediocre video in a vintage style DSLR policy is a sensible one per se, so any other Nikon (or Canikon) model would have been a less distracting (and perhaps more fair) example to make your point. Nevertheless, distracting or not, it did spun another generally interesting discussionn, didn't it.

Nnngh.... nnngh... pfff... phew! That was me finally giving up and no longer holding my breath waiting for the Part 2 to appear. I'll stop holding my breath for xmas, but I do hope it'll appear soon. Right after the holidays. :P Meanwhile, Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays to everyone, with or without the BMPCC. Cheers!

Whoah. So all the new sensor in the 70D delivered was the new hybrid AF that works better than the previous one, but all the old moire and jaggies is still there? Oh well, given the track record of the camera giants and Canon in particular, any other outcome would indeed have been a big surprise. Ho hum. Especially in their middle of the (price) range products. Hopefully they'll have something new and better up in their sleeve for next year.

To change the aperture, that's where the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Walimex cine series lenses come in. For traditional SLR designs like Nikon, Sony A, Pentax and so on, none of which were originally designed with video in mind. (Neither was Canon, apparently, but they just got lucky with their later design, and that's a whole another story) One might also experiment with manual and legacy lenses with aperture rings. As for the focus peaking, well, since the Nikon is a dSLR to begin with, and you'll have to rig it with all sorts of 3rd party shooting aids, anyway, you might as well go for an external monitor, too, a one with focus peaking built in. That'll also give you the option to monitor the audio track off the headphone jack in the monitor. It's quite likely that you knew all this already, even before you decided to buy a dSLR for video, but just in case someone hasn't bought one, or thought of rigging his/hers yet. Disclaimer: I haven't read through all the ten previous pages in this thread, so sorry if these topics have been discussed already.

Yes, yes, yes. That is the best piece of advice in this thread so far, but unfortunately so often ignored. We could geek out forever about megapixels, crop factors and all the bits and pieces of half a dozen or more different cameras, we could engage in endless fanboy wars, and keep bickering about matters of taste but, all that is irrelevant as long as you have no shooting mileage under your own belt. I would even use the term "the fact is" instead of "chances are." You won't really know what's actually important to you until you've got some shooting mileage. Furthermore, instead of "in a few years time" I'd say it'll likely happen within the first year, maybe six months, but the cycle will then slow down as one's experience grows. In that light, I'd recommend to go for the model that feels nicest in your own hand, and then go with it. When it comes to shooting both stills and video with the same gear, there really are no models that do both well. It's always a compromise, a bigger compromise for either one or the other. If you wish to have best of the both worlds, buy two different cameras, one for each task. No matter what the latest hype is out there. That's all the more reason not to go too pricey with the first choice, until you know what (which) is it that you really want to do. So, with the obvious compromise in mind, I'd say one of the best compromises for both stills and video under $800 category, with the "emphasis slightly on the video side," would be either the G6 or one of the Sony SLT models, like the a58, a65 and sometimes even a77, in some regions. The more the scale was to tip on the video side, the more obvious the G6 would be, mostly because of the better looking video in general. Although the Sonys aren't too bad when compared to some other dSLR models, they do have slightly more colour artifacts and a little bit of moire, too. But thanks to their hybrid design, they are much nicer compromises for stills&video (with the same camera) than typical dSLR's. Same with the G6, obviously. But since the two pre-selected choices were Nikon 5x00 and G6, rather than two different models with an EVF, the choice between those two should be pretty simple, IMO. From those two options I'd go for the Nikon, if my goal was to shoot mostly stills, and only dabble in video occasionally. Personally I wouldn't want to bother with the hassle of shooting video with a typical dSLR in the same price range. Canon or Nikon, doesn't matter. Awkward, clumsy and uncomfortable, with no real quality benefits, either. But for stills and action stills shooting they're pretty ok. On the other hand, if the emphasis was clearly more on the video side of things as suggested in the opening comment, from those two I'd go for the G6. If you can't get the Nikon idea off your head, buy a Metabones N->mFT Speed Booster, too. But all in all, you shouldn't really listen to any of us too much. You should just go for either/any camera, because as mentioned on the top of this comment, as a beginner you don't really know what you need or want yet, and that will most likely change along the way, as your experience grows. But as long as you don't have any camera, you won't get any shooting mileage and thus personal knowledge, and you'll be stuck in an endless loop of GAS and futile online debates forever. Doing research online will only help you to a certain point. After that, you just have to pick a tool, and then get up off your derrier and start shooting. Just go and pick one that fancies you the most. It doesn't matter if it's Panasonic, Nikon or some other brand, as long as you like it. Then just shoot, shoot shoot.

Your opinion has been noted. "Wrong" is one of the most popular words to start a pointless round of bickering online. In real life, the "wrong" is just a blunt way of expressing one's opinion, nothing more. "Wrong" is better suited to religious topics. Like mentioned above, there is plenty of room for both your "fast food" and his "home cooking" approach. Be it a quick cheeseburger and Coke at McDonald's, or a self cooked pepper stake with a glass of wine at home, whatever you fancy. Just pick one that's more to your taste, and be careful with the "w-word." :P

Well, they are. ;) But there is no point in bickering about them in this particular topic, because their usefulness is a matter of taste, and up to each of our personal preferences. So if you fancy using them, then by all means go ahead and do so. Who cares what others think. Anyway, apart from matters of taste, it is also a matter of control, as you may have just established. Manual control over automated thingies. You may wish to experiment by doing things the "old-fashioned" way. Or with your own custom settings. But filters and gimmicks aside, the "cinema look" means different things to different people, depending on their internal wiring. Besides, if a film/video clip is boring, no creative filter in the camera is likely to salvage it. Careful editing, on the other hand, just might.

This may go a bit off-topic, but to answer the question why, I think it's fashion. Just to make it clear, a disclaimer; I'm not talking about kurth here, but in general. Yes, one could say that the creative filters and stuff are indeed aimed at the mainstream snapshooters mostly, but that may be changing. The snappy cameras with their gimmicks are gradually merging with the lower end mirrorless system cameras, and the snappy cameras themselves become obsoleted by smartphones. Even Panasonic have been utilising some of the new trends in their own marketing in social media like YouTube, because it might help selling their current enthusiast cameras like G6 and GH3. Some people, even some professional photographers like Will Crocket, for example, have been eagerly propagating this formula with their memes like hybrid photography, pre-processing instead of post-processing, shooting jpegs instead of RAW, using various "E-templates" for instant and automated production of multimedia content for a long time now. They have also been touting cameras like the GH3, and why not G6, too, as ideal tools for this kind of shooting, labeled as "the future of professional photography and videography." Will and his minions, and no doubt some others, too, have been popularising the idea of shooting b/w video and square b/w photos, for example, straight out of the camera, and thus skipping post-production even in professional workflows. The end restults are then to be presented and sold to customers immediately as various "E-products" (for which they are making and selling those templates, obviously). I'm not saying there's anything wrong in doing that per se. I do agree that getting things right in the camera is a good idea, and that the mirrorless system cameras are both practical and probably the future of professional photography. No problem, I've been mostly mirrorless since 2011. However, Will Crockett's favourite meme of hybrid photography and E-products is not really my cup of tea. I'm not too eager to buy into his assertion of them being the future of (mainstream) professional photography and videography, either. If this kind of instant gratification style of photography was to becme the new mainstream norm, it would also mean instant commodity-fication and instant mediocrity-fication of both professional photography and videography. I hope their style of hybrid photo/videography will remain just one new means of gaining revenue, but not become the new norm, as Will is propagating. I do indeed believe that there will still be demand for "traditional" style of storytelling, cinematography and even photography, too, as well as photo video fusion (which is not quite the same as hybrid photography). I don't think the new hybrid fashion is going to totally replace those. Some of the storytelling magic, as well as quality will still happen in post production. It's a bit like fast food and fine dining. There's room for both. But I digress. :P Anyway, due to p&s cameras fading away, and thanks to the fact that cameras like G6 and even GH3 work for all sorts of shooting, all those fancy filters are not likely to go away any time soon. Thanks to the aforementioned trends, there may be even more of them stuffed inside the future models, rather than features the typical readers of this forum (=a small niche) really want. Maybe they'll even start offering "E-templates" built in. Hopefully they'll be downloadable options, though, rather than built in features. Anyway, apparently cameras without any gimmicks will become more and more rare and expensive, and mostly single purpose pro products. Or they come from non-mainstream brands like Blackmagic and the like. Fortunately the current models like G6 and GH3 are still quite usable for hobbyists and aspiring/beginning (or even working) filmmakers alike. We just need to ignore more and more menu features in them. Oops, looks like this became a long, OT semi-rant... but do carry on topic. :)

What exactly is confusing you? As a general rule of thumb, when you're doing something relatively heavy work like video editing on a computer, the mightier the machine the better. All the rest is up to you, your personal preferences, your budget and your personal taste. Make up your own mind based on those, don't let (or expect) other people (to) make it for you. All the options mentioned, like a Mac Pro, 27-inch (or smaller) iMac, a mighty PC, etc. are feasible candidates, you just pick one that's most to your liking and is a best fit to your existing system. If you're a Mac guy with some existing OS X apps and stuff, go for an iMac or Mac Pro. If you're a Windows guy with Windows apps, go for a PC. Simple, isn't it. As for the Hackintosh, I for one wouldn't recommend that as a serious tool for serious (paid) work or as a long-term reliable editing platform. Unless you're a hardcore nerd who loves to hack and tinker the hardware and software for the sake of it, and use the machine for your personal entertainment only, not for any business purposes. The PC hardware is ok, but I'd rather go for Windows and Vegas, Adobe Premiere etc. Or choose a real Mac with FCPX (or Premiere, etc). But if a Hackintosh, the KEXT tinkering and stuff fancies you, well, it's up to you. As for the Mac mini, I wouldn't put it quite as B/W as Andrew did above, but obviously a mini is not an ideal machine to buy for video editing. However, if you already happen to own a latest generation Mac mini and you wish to buy FCPX and start editing videos, there is no good reason why you shouldn't just buy FCPX. Basic editing is quite doable with it, with enough memory, just a bit slower. Of course a mightier iMac, let alone a Mac Pro, would be better and faster, but the point is, you can start with your existing mini, and use it to earn money for a mightier machine, like the iMac, by doing great films, for example. It ain't about the gear, but how you use them, right? B) I hope this helps with the confusion.

Well, the small size is indeed one of the main attractions for sure. But again, with the aforementioned Video Quality vs. Annoyance Ratio apparently being a constant, they made the otherwise interesting pocket cinema camera a bit too "girly," with the good movie part being a mere accident, and aimed it more towards the female photo shooters with smaller and more delicate hands, rather than towards the male video shooters with big tubby hands. :) As for naming the camera, well, if I end up getting one, I think such a girly, petite camera should have a female name. If it was an orange one, who would be the cute gingerhead to name it after? Lindsay, perhaps? B)

Edit: nevermind, no longer relevant.

Well, the Mac Pro would be cool, of course, but that same money could indeed be spend on something else, too. Having been using a 20-inch Cinema Display recently, I think my choice from those options (and probably my next machine) would be the 27-inch iMac, rather than two smaller screens, and then I'd use any change left for a HD toaster and fill it with a couple of big hard disks. I've been shooting with an AVCHD camera lately, but I never edit AVCHD directly. I always transcode the dodgy AVCHD files into ProRes 422 AVI format with a separate app, then add and organise those files along with possible audio tracks, stills and stuff, and then import it all into FCPX. I believe that will take some of the need for the raw processing power away, and make it easier for a less powerful machine. Mind you, for the time being I'm using the latest generation mini for my edits. Obviously a mightier mojo box with a faster graphics card would make things go faster and smoother, but it's still quite doable. Same with the FW or even USB2/3 drives, they'll do just fine, but they just won't be as fast. The drive I'm using for the Final Cut Events and Projects folders is a Firewire 800 one. In other words, not having a Thunderbolt drive is not stopping you from editing, nor will the performance "suffer" because the lack of one. It just makes your workflow a bit slower, that's all. The more money you cough up, the faster your workflow will be. That's about it. Well, according to my 2c, anyway.

Merci for the clip. The GM1 can indeed make ze Paris look tres good, even in the dull December weather. Almost wakes up my wanderlust. :) I've read two different GM1 reviews online recently, and in both of them the reviewers complain about the oversensitive dial on the back of the camera, and the difficulty of using it. They both mention how sometimes they would end up adjusting something else they tried to adjust, because the ring takes a click way too eagerly. I wonder if the reviewers have been using the same press demo unit, or is that indeed a common feature in it. I hope those who already own one could confirm or bust that. A feature like that sounds annoying indeed, but suppose the footage it's capable of almost makes for it. After all, be it any HDSLR, a GM1, BMPCC, BMCC or even D16, quality video and annoyances seem to go hand in hand. One simply doesn't come without the other. :D For some unknown reason I haven't had nearly as much interest for the GX7, which wouldn't have such issues. What a strange little camera. :)