fuzzynormal

Shoot 30p on both.

It does look good. Think they might be using the low setting on the iDynamic function as well? Also, the dude looks to have a bigger lens than native m43 on the cam judging by that reflection shot where we see the camera op... Might have vintage glass on it too.

This pretty much nails it. From my experience, you work in the market you deserve to work. If you're running in the segment that wants to see pretty gear, that's fine if it's where you want to be. If you aspire to be judged on your creative capabilities, then you do stuff that proves your ability, you get hired because you impress, and the rest falls into place. I've seen really talented people pass through my work-tier and it's always easy to recognize those that are bound to move onward and upward. The bulk of my jobs are in the corporate world and there's some limited experience in the higher end film production. That's the path I've taken. The compromise in corporate is that there's more than a bit of hand holding for the client...which might be impressing them in ways that don't show up on the product. Plus, with corporate gigs the stakes aren't as high. It's a blessing and a curse. Anyway, like I said, I've built up a DSLR rig for clients before. No big deal, pardon the pun.

Ugh, I've done that. I always travel with 2 backup cams now. Places like Borneo and Cambodia typically have a short supply of electronics...

In general, don't use auto focus while recording video; any cam, any brand.

Confirmed from my GX7 experience too. The EFV is not color accurate. Odd, but there ya go...

When I get back to my home office I'll send a pic of a DSLR rig I built a few years ago to make a client feel better...and never used it for anything really practical, just some studio stuff. It was highly entertaining to put it all together, but shooting with all those attachments was just kind of silly and just isn't my style.

Stick a big ol shotgun mic on the top too. That always looks good. Interesting to hear perspectives from Egypt. This particular issue is familiar to me with some corporate clients...it's always a weird balance within those guys. They want to know that they're spending money on something special, and it's hard to quantify an intangible such as "creativity." My sentiment is with Richg101, but reality seems to get in the way. So, in those situations, big things impress. That part of the business is the same everywhere. Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. Let me know when you're in the market for crew. Lots of my assignments have been in south east Asia, Europe and the Pacific rim, but yet, frustratingly, I've never been to Africa. Would love to go to work on something cool. Look me up if you need any help.

Rig it up. If it just needs to be big to make an insecure client feel better, why not? Slap a huge matte box on there while you're at it. Never use it, it won't matter, it'll just look cool. Pander to lucrative clients...to a point.

Cameron? Really? He can stage some action, but were's the originality?

Make a silent film and tell a story where two characters are always in sillohette. Seriously. Make THAT happen. Forget the technical. It doesn't matter. Work the craft. Force yourself to consider silhouette and learn to look at light. Start with unusual, fun, circumstances and work backwards from there. Limitations are a weirdly ironic avenue for creativity. Obstructionism is a common exercise for artists.

Dancing Taco? Have you seen my reel from 98? It also had a dancing popcorn shrimp on it. Upper or lower fields?

Hang out and pay attention with people that are incredibly better than you. That's the best education right there. Nothing better. Always work with/for talented people and you'll pick things up quickly.

Even when I agree with it, or am impressed by it, I tend to understand marketers are just creating a motivator for my own purchase rationalizations...as they also understand, btw.

I'll contend that regardless of what editing system you want to use. FCP, Premiere, iMovie, AVID, Sony, Media100, an iPad app, an old Video Toaster, Moviola, or a pair of scissors with some glue; where you make the edits is more important than how you do it. Which is why as long as you have something that allows you to splice, you can effectively edit. To assume otherwise is a mistake I think. It's akin to the enthusiast buying a $8K Leica and saying that he's a serious photographer simply because he has good gear. It doesn't really work that way. Yes, good gear elevates the skill. It certainly may motivate it as well. However, it doesn't really create it. That needs to come from the film creator. --And Fincher could make the same movies he makes on any gear. In fact, I'd argue his movies might even be better if he parsed back the advanced technology he uses sometimes. Digital bells and whistles are nice for a lot of stuff, no question, but the fundamentals are constant. If you know how to manipulate the basics to your advantage as a storyteller, that's the key. Asserting this sort of stuff on a tech-centric blog seems like spitting in the wind sometimes, but that's just my POV.

Find local pros who's work you admire and hire them for shooting and editing your next job. You just assist, watch, and ask questions. And/or, request they mentor you. It's cheaper than film school and its a fast track to practical learning.

There's not much less impressive than bragging about what editing system is used to cut a motion picture. It's editing, for goodness sake. Where you splice the cuts matter, not the razor that does it.

Think maybe it's a light leak through the body of the camera somehow?

This is an insight that's sometimes overlooked by gear nerds. We want everything to be latest and greatest and cheap to boot, yet to sustain a brand in a broad market sometimes corporate strategies just lead companies a different direction. I'd argue it's all pretty dang good these days anyway. It's getting to the point where IQ in the consumer space is very comparable across the board. A company has to navigate that reality. Unfortunately for us lower-end folks, a corporate strategy is not always about leapfrogging the competition with imaging specs in the newer models. It's understandable to me why Canon wants to delineate it's consumer and pro divisions. We wish it wasn't so, and that the most aggressively innovative products always won the day, but that's just not reality. Even still, we're getting loads of great products these past few years.

Yeah, I'll need some pretty extensive therapy and may convert my religious affiliation to a Himalayan Buddhist sect in order to cope, but with a little luck I think I'll pull through. Either that or I'll just curl up into a fetal position with my old 5D and coo gently to it as I fall asleep. Eh, perhaps both.

Okay Quirky, you win the know-more-than-the-other-random-guy-on-the-internet-award. Be sure to hang that above the mantle.

I hereby qualify my statement. "Canon's CAMERA, although not specifically designed to do so, was a catalyst that encouraged a new revolutionary wave of indy filmmaking." May my transgressions be forgiven! My broad original statement failed to parse enough detail! The wrath of the pedantic is upon me. That said, the new Nikon camera looks well heeled enough for folks (that actually LIKE the DSLR motion picture aesthetic, and want an awesome stills camera too) to give it some thought. For what it's worth, I had a D90, and it was awful for video.

It may seem weird and ironic that the brand which launched the EOS filmmaking Revolution is the same that doesn't seem to worry about it all, but at this point, who really cares? So many good alternative options, let them persue their strategy and we'll just go elsewhere. Seems like there's plenty of room for everyone.

I always wonder if humanity could handle it. Too boring. On the other hand, a camera with exploding rainbows would be awesome.

Same sensor as the gx7, yet my gx7 ain't doin no 4k. Man, I need to hire a coder to take care of that... That camera needs a hack.