fuzzynormal

It's there on the Gm1. Gotta be careful with it. You can shoot slow shutter to avoid it, but that's not good for stills. When in doubt, turn off silent shutter mode.

Nothing's going to be superior to lavaliere mics. The best microphone in the world will sound lousy if it's not placed correctly. If the camera is far away from the subject, don't expect great sound. Physics. You can't deny it. Booms and Lavs exist for good reason. Since you're on a budget, I suggest getting a nice long pole, a smart PA to hold it, and putting the best 200 euro mic at the end of it. Also, a decent (self) education on how to record audio and WHY sound does what it does ... it's such a good investment, don't overlook that part.

Bet you won't ever forget to monitor/check your audio in the future, eh? Seems like a bad hard-wire connection. We've all been there. Audio mistakes...they'll kill ya. Upload a clip and I think you'll get some help. Also, consider iZotope audio plug-ins (RX3) for doctoring awful audio. They've saved my hide on occasion.

You'll get that regardless.

Dear Sir, In response to your quip regarding my grammatical abilities, and/or inabilities, I present to you a re-visitation of correspondence context. Wherein you wrote: "Why Take Chances?" I responded in kind with not these words verbatim, but nevertheless this sentiment: "That is a simple question in which an individual's subjective answer would partially reveal their complicated fundamental existential opinions regarding how they live their life." Of course, that sentiment that was wrapped up in a common metaphor and spoken word nomenclature such as, "Rabbit hole of philosophy, that." Notice that wherein the metaphor "Rabbit Hole" refers to something simple on the surface that is quite complex below it. However, I tend to believe you would rather read a reply, while still pithy, conveys a stronger grammatical sentence structure. Thus I present to you this: "That question is a rabbit hole of philosophy." Sincerely, Guy-who-is-bored-and-has-nothing-better-to-do-than-type-this-nonsense-at-the-moment-but-is-too-lazy-to-use-vowels-for-this-last-word-srsly. (Is my video rendering done yet...?)

Rabbit hole of philosophy, that.

I go for the easy jokes. It was either a self-depricating aside or a fart quip. I went with the former.

Hey, the GM1 works for a lot of stuff. I'm using effectively and I'm happy with it; shooting a lot of night city stuff without a light kit and it does the job... Ain't perfect, but no camera is, so you learn to work with what it offers. BTW, I've set my F1 button to control the ISO for quick exposure adjustment. Be sure to get in there and customize the thing to your liking. That does help.

Speak for yourself. Now I'm really worried.

It it works well for photo, it'll be fine for video.

It's a big scary word next to the scary "radioactive" word. Oh nos! I'm gonna die because science is stuff I don't comprehend and I just KNOW it can sometimes be bad, like vaccines. One. Heat it up with fire and put bits of food on the glass. Of course a regular frying pan might work better. Just make sure that's it's not cast iron. Too much iron leeching off cookware is bad for you. On second thought, just don't eat. It's dangerous. Stop breathing too. In fact, why are you even trying to live? Don't you know you can't do it forever? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Why are we even here? What's the point? Does god exist? 42.

Since you're looking for a lens that does video, and all video shooting on Canon is MANUAL, look at good old manual lenses in your focal length/f-stop range for options. Lots of glass to consider. Anything from Pentax to Hasselblad could be used. Nikon lenses, especially the famous 35 1.4 from the 70's/80's (and still made today), looks good insomuch that it has the visual traits of that era of lenses, for better or worse depending on your subjective opinion. And since you're in the market for a lens with character as well as affordable... Think about it, borrow one and try it. It's around $500 used. Otherwise, the Sigma or the Samyang/Rokinon is probably the best bet for a new lens in the budget cost/performance range.

I'm remodeling a mid-century American house. It was constructed in the early 60's I'm pretty sure it's made with the tobacco spit of cowboys and asbestos mixed with mule dung. Whatever. Like anything else, manage the risks. Understand the reality. Words like "radioactive" scare people, but everything's radioactive. Know what matters and why and it's not a problem. Now excuse me while I drink my mercury and jade elixir so I can live forever.

Hardware hacks probably would be easy. That's a small sensor though: 5.75 × 4.28 mm. Even with lenses built for 16mm, 10.26 x 7.49 mm, you'd have some extensive cropping. And, Ooooooo, what about our precious shallow DOF? How can we shoot anything without shallow depth of field! No one these days is allowed to make movies unless the DOF and bokeh is incredible. I'm pretty sure one's DIY cinematographer's credentials are in danger of being revoked if an aperture is closed down beyond f4.

Hard to see what the subjects are doing through that overwhelming lens flare. What is it exactly? Looks like two Dolphins and a CHP police officer trying to wrestle a giraffe in flip flops. Am I right?

My first go-pro bricked the first shot I took with it (lame) --so I sent it back and never followed up with replacing it. However, I'll be getting this guy for the specific reason that having a 4K cam to fly in a cheap DJI will be invaluable for certain productions.

The lens from your OP is built for a 2/3rd CCD. You might have issues with the lens covering the entire sensor of the G6 when not in "TeleEx" mode.:

Those old pro video camera lenses are good glass and should be decently sharp in HD. The bigger question is how are you going to mount it and to what?

For auto focus?

Some questions make sense for a forum, some for search engines. These are common/old SD broadcast video camera lenses. I think if you want to use em on a newer camera, it'll need to be one with a small sensor like the BMPC or the DBolex.

On the contrary, it seems to me I'm hearing criticism of the video content. I'll elaborate. The camera is only a tool and the examples are more a preferential testament to the filmmaker production abilities rather than the actual cameras IQ. It's not the camera "outclassing" one video over another. They both look fine. The lighting and environment in the GH3 video is more interesting and dynamic though. The art design of the work is considered and successful. That's the MUCH bigger difference to me. Is that aspect of the vid influencing one's bias of the image? I think it might be. (It should, should't it?) No layperson that I know is going to pixel peep at their wedding video and complain that a 5DIII has less perceived IQ than a GH3. No way. There are more important things they worry about. Like, you know, the created content. Besides, the GH3 video in this wedding video, to my eye, is a tad over sharpened anyway and, for a romantic wedding, I actually prefer the gentler and deeper DOF image from the 5D. I believe the word that sums all this up is called "subjectivity." Must be me. I just don't get the brand "vs." brand stuff and asserting that one certain camera is so much superior to this other camera. All newer cameras produce incredible worthwhile results and to quibble about what are ultimately pretty inconsequential IQ differences seems like a waste of time. You buy the gear that does what you want it to do. You feel you need RAW, you choose RAW. You want ProRes422, go get it. 8 bit gets you by, no problem. Simple. Different needs, different cameras. Ultimately both of the filmmakers responsible for the videos above went out and created something with their gear and were successful at it. To me, that fact is so much more important than anything else.

You figured it out. Also, if you wait for the next "best" thing in cameras, you'll always be waiting. Assuming that you want to actually make stuff in the meantime just get something and use it. Almost all cameras create really good images these days if you know what you're doing. Make stuff and have fun.

Cinematic images, IMHO, are easier attained with the longer "portrait" focal lengths. For reference: the 80-130mm FF equivalent. They make getting shots a more considerate process. The constraints of this force me to be creative and technically disciplined. I like that. Short lens shots speak to me, (outside of narrative context) more often than not, as "video" rather than film. That's my broadcasting background, I suppose. Anyway, the small/light Oly45mm on the m43 sensor has been good to me. Any cheap/sharp 50mm lens (adapted) will work too. Right now I have 4 different 50's. Pentax, Nikon, Helios and Jupiter. Bigger glass but perfectly capable in different ways. I have no real love for zooms, but they are pragmatic depending on the gig.

This is true, but the innocuous size of the pocket cams do allow for acquiring certain shots that otherwise one might not get. I can control a big camera better, but for some of the gigs I've done, having a big camera just isn't a great idea. Not sure how many here have had to endure a shakedown from authorities in Cambodia or other developing countries, but avoiding that scenario by not looking "pro" does have value.

The gm1 works for me, but I'm not that demanding when it comes to grading....