fuzzynormal

I agree that this particular rumor is a bit silly, but I can understand the tendency of enthusiasts to imagine such a thing is possible. We're all well aware that manufacturers deliberately throttle back their hardware. Combine this knowledge with exact ignorance of the technical capabilities, and the wishful thinking is actually kinda rational. I, for one, am curious why the GX7, for instance, cannot handle RAW bursts larger than 1080 that last a handful of seconds. Why exactly couldn't it shoot 10 seconds of 4592x3448 with a firmware hack or update? For that matter, why couldn't the EM1? I mean, that's sort of a version of 4K. A cheap Nikon can burst hi-res raw, but flagship models from the major camera brands can't? Seems weirdly unreasonable, even if it's somehow the reality of the sensor capabilities. Maybe there's an obvious explanation, but it's not readily available without some tenacious digging into on-line info. Or, perhaps someone here knows exactly why. Point is, there's a pretty big gray area. And developer groups like Magic Lantern have delved into those darker shades and illuminated new possibilities...so it's easy to hope for better things with a simple installation of new code.

The most low-key and effective way I do things is to just shoot handheld. It takes lots of practice to control the body to keep things steady, but I've learned to manage. When I'm not using a loupe and want to appear more like a "tourist" --a simple trick I've used is to adjust my neck strap out so the camera is a foot or so away from my eyeballs then pull the strap taunt. The camera stabilizes with the body. Also, by then resting the body against something solid the lens will quiet down pretty good. I also have a small bean bag that cradles the camera and is used for static shots. Or, if a surface is smooth, the bag can be slid for a dolly. Anyway, weird creative stuff like that will help get interesting shots. When I'm not as concerned with appearances I'll put a pistol grip on the camera and the loupe. With that pressure point up against the eye/head the framing is stable(ish).

Not really, was most interested in the 5-axis stabilization. Considered the M1as well, but the M5 just fits the assignment better.

When needed, I put a hoodman loupe on mine for shooting outside. I think this setup has better resolution than the EVF of the GX7. I find it's pretty easy to focus anyway. I also really appreciate the "not-a-pro" vibe I give off when shooting with the small form factor GM1, but the dang loupe is bigger than the camera! Still, as someone that shoots a lot of street documentary footage, looking innocuous is very important to me. At any rate, The camera gear from all manufacturers is getting nuts. 4K in a GM size? C'mon, that's cool.

I'll guess "Imagination." Nothing's ever been done with a firmware update like that before. As much as I'd love to be surprised such intense upgrades are actually possible, I can't imagine that list to be accurate. Something tells me the source of that rumor might not understand what he thinks he saw... At any rate, if they want to release the firmware update before my shoot next week I'd appreciate it! Olympus, can you help a brotha' out?

You can do whatever you want, but like others have said, double shutter to the frame rate=motion pix rules. So, if you're outside at say f5.6, a shutter speed of 50, ISO 100, and it's still overexposed, then yeah, slap some ND on there to bring it where it needs to be. Or, sacrifice f-stop/Depth of field and close down the iris. Personally, I like a f-stop around 5.6 and a shutter of 50 when shooting with the 7D DSLR @24fps. I lock that in and control exposure with ISO or ND filters.

I wouldn't mind a 4K video burst (15seconds) if they could pull it off. Seems like that a reasonable capability of any new camera, but who knows? Likewise 24 or 25fps unlimited recording. Well, since I'll now have the camera I can start hoping for new things.

In a sense I already did. My purchase decision was between those 3 choices. The assignment is almost exclusively hand held shooting. The image priorities demand more of composition, framing, and elegance while being extremely run 'n gun. Almost (so close) bought the GH4 instead, and would have loved to try the A7s, but considering I won't be allowed to haul along extra rigging that would let me to do attractive dollies and tracking, I settled on the Oly 'kuz of the 5-axis stabilization. It's not always about the pixels, peeps. We'll see how things go...!

Producer offered up 4K to gear up for a shoot. So... out of those three cameras I just bought an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and two zoom lenses (14-150 & 100-300) for the overseas travel video assignment. What? Am I crazy?

...And fully metal. For what it's worth, the smaller M43 bodies are more... I don't know... how about: reassuring. When they have the hefty older glass on them that's my sensation anyway. Maybe it's legacy of muscle memory from my younger days. My GX7 with an old Nikkon 24mm on it feels a lot more "real." Also, I shoot FD glass from time to time with a colleague's FS700 and they're always tack sharp and clean across the frame.

Mine's still okay and I've done worse to it. Sometimes the dramatic impacts are the least physical and visa versa. I've fallen from a tree branch 20 feet up and walked away without a scratch; slipped once in the bedroom and broke my ankle. Go figure. Anyway, good to hear you GM1 is still working, even if it's just silent mode.

Dang, if I had either camera I'd like to think I'd actually go out and have fun making something with them instead of arguing about the rather irrelevant differences between color casts of the sensor. In a priority list of things to worry about when making a movie, the color characteristics of a 2014 digital sensors should be somewhere around page 12 of a 13 page list. If you're a specialist that's been hired as a DP, bump that up a little bit, maybe to page 10. If you're just the colorist TECHNICIAN on a film production, then you got something to actually fret about. Anybody here doing work with a budget that supports such a production crew luxury? I know I'm not --and will probably never have that opportunity. Honestly, if a magenta or cyan color is getting in the way of you being a DSLR/mirrorless film maker, then I'd have to wonder if you're the type that's doing the whole film making thing wrong. Sure, knowing about the color is important, but this minutia tech analysis on a indy film level is really so pedantic that it becomes farce. If you want to make films, worry about things that matter. On the other hand, maybe you don't want to be a film maker. Perhaps you might just be the type that wants to just own a camera so you can play with the technology and then justify/rationalize your ownership of said camera by championing the product in on-line forums. I don't really see the enjoyment in that, but it appears to be a popular pastime. There sure seems to be a deep need of some camera owners to get affirmations that their brand or model is the best. I just don't get it. Modern cameras do it all, just in slightly different ways. Grab any of them and they'll be a good enough tool to realize your story. Anyway, I'm a bit hypocritical. I just typed all this nonsense to procrastinate from my storyboards. Time to stop being distracted and get back to work.

Seeing curated stuff from someone else's POV is appreciated by me. I think that would work in a sticky thread.

California. And yeah, the borders go soft on the 24mm, but it's a $15 lens. Besides, for certain shots it's nice to have a bit of edge softness.

Not an issue for me. I got a "Pixco" adapter off ebay (for whatever that's worth). Anyway, here's an example. You can see blurriness around the edges of frame, but like I say, I think that vignetting adds character. Center of image is decent even into the distance. I'll admit if you get these lenses you're not buying the world's best glass, but it does the job. Again, if you're on a real tight budget, these lenses will give you good options with various focal lengths and are super cheap.

BTW, the a110 lenses are all set at f2.8. Which is kind of the FF equivalent to f5.6 on m43. Sorta the traditional cinematography sweet spot for DOF.

With those a110 lenses I can get focus on distant objects no problem. You've had issues doing this?

I tried to make a horror film once. It's junk compared to this.

One option: Get a dumb adapter and buy really old and used lenses. The Pentax mount stuff is cheap kuz they were the goto SLR for beginners back on the day. A fast 50mm, perfect for interviews, can be found for 25-50 bucks. Another option: I bought a Pentax a110 camera with three primes on eBay for $65. 12mm, 24mm, and 50mm. The adapter for these lenses was $10. I've had a lot of fun with this glass. It has character and really makes my Lumix footage look less sterile. (A lot less sterile) I really like 'em and what they give me. Bought adapter rings to mount the same thread ND's and lens hoods for all 3 lenses. Spent about 150 total, plus got a fun old camera (with a half roll of shot film in it) with the glass. Works good. I even appreciate the flaws and flares they render. Your mileage may differ, but I'd recommend giving them a try since you budget is tight.

I'd willingly browse a thread of videos the moderators deemed worthwhile...if that's something they'd have time to do.

Ultimately, I'm not sure what the kerfluffle is regarding this test. Perhaps I just don't relate much to people that would ignore what's happening here. It shows the camera doing some respectable shots under ridiculous conditions. As a guy angling toward documentary production, I am impressed. I can think of hundreds of ways to utilize the opportunity that a low light sensor offers. If you're a shooter and can't recognize that technical convenience and then consider the possible exploitation of it --but would rather just dismiss that potential in favor of some rhetorical ulterior motive... Well, my guess is you're gonna have some issue in your "career." And yes, I just made sarcastic quotes around the word career. For instance, a dismissive personality might hinder worthwhile collaboration in an industry that thrives on such. Maybe that's a bit of a stretch to connect between two dots? Maybe not.

4k has more crop factor, so the edge blur on the Fujinon minimizes. Anyway, I think you want something that doesn't really exist. Fast, wide, sharp, and NEW doesn't really equal affordable.

The Kodak corporation is a corporate zombie. There's certainly not much brain power left in upper management, and even if there was, brand value is all they have left to deal. It was a more or less a walking corpse two decades ago when they were unable to pivot with the market. With Fuji out of film manufacturing and Kodak is disarray, the studios are going to have to buy the technology, patents, and hardware if they want to keep it going. I can't imagine a small niche company investing in the licensing and materials to service such a limited market. It's gotta go "in house," doesn't it? If studios and directors demand the glory of film, I kinda think they're gonna have to make it happen themselves. Meanwhile the rest of the industry has adopted digital as a pragmatic and welcomed standard, for better or worse.

Beggars, choosers, and all that. When you're on a budget you make compromises. Otherwise, you can get this lens: http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Zuiko-Digital-Thirds-Cameras/dp/B0058PL9R0 Which I did. It's nice and sharp. Easy to manually focus too.

As they gain in popularity and more idiots like me try to fly 'em, you can bet someone on the ground is going to get seriously injured soon. I've crashed mine more than once. From an American perspective: All it takes is one notorious story in the media claiming an injury trend and legislators will have an excuse to regulate some nonsense.