fuzzynormal

A full set cost me $100...and I got the cool old 110 camera to go with it.

Turn down the sharpness on the c100, bump it up on the 5D. Adjust 'til they're similar. Do it in camera, do it in post, either way. Crop factor I wouldn't worry about, but that's me.

Sennheiser MKH-416 - Short Shotgun Interference Tube Mic. It's awesome. Float it a few inches over the subjects head just off frame for interviews and it's every bit as good as a lav. You'll need a rig to do get it in the right spot... or a PA. I use a c-stand when I'm on my own. That said, even a cheaper (ME67) shotgun will capture passable audio with proper PLACEMENT. Honestly, without putting the mic in the right spot all your audio will sound bad, lav or shotgun. It's not a difficult skill to learn how to engineer decent audio. I'm constantly amazed so many people in video production don't actively study it.

If you want to be a DP then I suggest truly fretting about lenses, cameras, and all that. However, if you want to be a true filmmaker, get your hands on anything and make something compelling with it. Can you tell a story? Ideas are free. Organize and shoot a compelling narrative, let the tech stuff follow. The stream doesn't always flow so much in the other direction. It does sometimes, just not as often as tech-centric websites would have you believe. Cart. Horse. I've recently been shooting documentary B-Cam stuff with a GM1 and a Pentax auto 110 lens. Every time I look at the footage I think, man, I could easily shoot a narrative film with this thing. Perhaps that's next...?

If I were to believe half the nonsense I read about aspect ratios, I'd have to conclude I shouldn't enjoy my favorite film of all time because it's shot in 4:3

Here's my experience: I use both ZOOM devices. And while my H4N is perfectly useable with my Sony ECM-77B wired lav mic, the H1 with the Sennheiser EW100 wireless system actually delivers superior --and very clean low noise floor audio. Plus the flexibility of wireless shouldn't be overlooked. It comes in handy. Being mobile with audio is a valuable tool.

It's even better when they jack up the shutter speed to 1000 when they're outdoors on a bright day.

I, for one, appreciate the sentiment this thread has evolved into. As the technology rapidly becomes more democratic the tools become a commodity. What you do with that tool matters more. I love watching the march of development as much as the next guy, and I like to buy video/film cameras. Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, Hitachi, JVC, Sony, Fuji, Bolex, Arri... I've owned 'em or rented 'em all. But I'm not a fan boy that projects their purchasing commitment/ownership into some sort of brand proselytizing. It's not too hard to imagine that in a decade we'll all have access to numerous small DSLR cameras shooting over 4K with incredible low-light sensitivity, full frame, uncompressed internal flash card recording, 5 axis-stabilization, and over 15 stops of dynamic range. And it'll be pretty cheap to boot. Digital moves fast and we'll have those goodies before you know it. Those that concentrate on the craft rather than the tech will stand out from the numerous numerous people that will also own this gear. As it has always been and and it will always be. It used to be that purchasing a superior camera got you into the realm of "pro" simply by ownership. After all, six figures for a well lensed and rigged camera is serious business, and DOES have value. However, I really think that legacy of the industry will be more and more irrelevant.

Or minutes upon minutes. I've never notice any difference between time spent on color-correcting with any camera, honestly.

Are other cameras different? That's not been my experience.

I think that ballerina short film recently on the web is an officially endorsed Panasonic PR video. It's no great shakes either. Again, not because of the camera, but for unremarkable production reasons...for instance, the editing is not innocuous. Lingering shots on bad acting=narrative distraction. I go to enough film festivals to get my fill of that.

A vintage lens on a Panasonic looks fine and cinematic@24p, and that's without color grading. I often use the same prime Nikon 24 and 50mm lenses on the gx7 and 5d. The images are both pretty cinematic to my eye. I shot a concert film with a gh1 and a 5d; cut together fine.

Good for you. Find something that works and fits your taste. I like m43 photography though, so I'm cool with small Lumix cams.

This played in my town a few weeks back. The thing I find ironic about the film is that Wiseau made a movie that'll be more popular and memorable than anything most people with actual talent will ever do. Even when I own the magic GH4, I'll most likely never achieve his level of success.

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.