fuzzynormal

Nice. I got a low-budget American Western on the agenda and finding an interesting lens set for that film needs to happen. Considering the content of the film, I'm curious about vintage lenses and the IQ character they offer for such storytelling. I'll try them out and look forward to the results. I don't have any wide-angle shots planned, so 18mm and above would be perfectly fine. Anything I should know about the adapter or the infinity focus Pascal mentioned?

I'm not enamored with it to be honest, even though I employed it for a specific purpose in one of my recent doc-shorts. That insane DOF is just not a visual I'm used to as a guy growing up on American cinema. However, it's handy for talking head interview shots. That low-light ability and deep DOF makes those types of compositions a bit easier. Even so, the M43 does impressive DOF too if you want it.

I'm unfamiliar with these lenses and adapter. What testimony can you tell me about them? I'd like to hear from some experience.

If you want a cinematic look, f2.8 is a good place to be on the M43 cameras.

As a person that's also made 5DII-shot documentaries in film festivals (and that matters not) --I'm just saying so many people focus their concerns in directions that ultimately may not be as important as they think. If 2 stops of dynamic range prevents you from telling a good story, well, that's odd isn't it? Still, I do know why you'd want that capability. It's nice, but if you're strapped for cash don't worry about it. As it happens, I also just wrote that stuff above just for the sake of writing it. Maybe it's contrarian on a blog that's about gear, but that's my POV. I'm pretty sure point-of-view is what the entire global internet runs on. Hubris, opinion, and comatose humans radiating body heat for our alien overloads inside another dimension of reality. You've already said what you have is working and and right now you have no money. So it seems you're fishing for an affirmation to buy something new? Ultimately, do what you want, but do check out Andy Lee's advice. I'd say that's spot on.

This isn't true in my experience...or else I'm reading different blogs. You're not going to find much FF references in cinematography magazines for instance. And since this particular site is about filmmaking on photography equipment, having dual context-understanding between cinema and photography focal lengths is important.

I'll say this: If you think the camera is what's limiting your creativity and productivity in photography, videography, and/or cinematography, you're not doing it right to begin with. ...So much more important things to worry about than the camera.

They're all good as they typically succeed in the tasks I set out for them. I've taken to thinking of camera bodies like film stock. Each has IQ characteristics. The flaws are actually an aesthetic that can be exploited.

As someone that's done at least a dozen shoots in the past month that mix GX7 footage with a 5DII and a 7D, I strangely don't have this problem. Curious.

Looks like you figured it out on your own. I shoot handheld mostly myself since I've been working on documentaries, but I'll admit it takes more skill to create a compelling edit with static shots. It is more difficult; not technically, but most other ways. However, the older I get the more I'm attracted to an informed "quiet" lens. My next short is going to be an exercise in all static shots.

Yes. It's good and I like it's low-light capability. Then again...all cameras released in the last two years are quite good.

No. It's not the the quantity of light, it's how you use what's there. You can't purchase your way into professional accomplished photography/videography. You either learn the skill to do it well or you don't. If you're coveting a new camera that's fine, but don't assume that camera is going to accomplish something professional just because it's nice gear.

Apparently a lot of people prefer that method. I'm guilty of it. Wisdom helps, but not always.

Here's my simple rant: Everything's good now-a-days. This kind of stuff is truly getting to be an "angels-on-the-head-of-pins" debate. Sure there's always some new thing that might solve a particular problem, but how serious is that problem, really? Worry more about how to interpret light in a productive creative way and you'll be fine whatever you choose. A good cinematographer with an iPhone will always outshoot an amateur with an Alexa. What's more important? A long zoom lens or knowing how to capture a compelling image? I'd rather learn the latter and then utilize the former. Until you have some advanced skill at creating images you're not going to run into serious limitations with gear. You will be the limitation. In fact, by not compromising your desires you're the one limiting your own potential. Obstructions can create actual paths to creativity. Best documentary shoot of my life was when I said, "the hell with carrying all that crap" and I hit the road for a month with one 50mm lens. Had to make do, so I did. As for cameras, seriously, when it comes to imaging equipment, we're all driving Lamborghinis. Learn how to shift and steer the damn thing before you fret about the camber of the rear suspension and the downforce of the spoiler. I know all the stuff out there can be overwhelming...but believe me, there are no bad choices for imaging gear in the upper end of the consumer market. The bad choices happen when you start shooting with ignorance or complacency. Solve those problems and it'll all be good regardless.

The Rome video on the previous page is shot handheld and filmed by someone with skill. It's no joke to me as it illustrates what's possible with the OM-D's and a bit talent. The other videos in the thread seem to be pretty much neophytes trying to figure out how to use the gear. Nothing wrong with that, but the examples are obviously nothing too special. But the Rome vid is certainly a showcase for the Oly's. It helps sell me on the idea that the OM-D line would be the best camera(s) for my 2-month-hike-film. The less I have to carry on that particular shoot the better.

A 36" slider (pushing with my finger) and a simple jib. I forget the jib length. My colleague let me borrow it. I could get the arm up there around 12 feet or so. Anyway, showing that video illustrates how it's not just about the number of pixels captured. It's, IMHO, more about exploiting the light and getting decent framing.

Here's a "low-res-for-web" video I did as a quick favor for a friend a few years back. Shot on a Rebel Ti, no lights. It's far from perfect, but shows how available light can be utilized with some shooting strategy and concessions:

Quirky's advice is solid: Skill trumps gear. Anyone that tells you otherwise is untrustworthy as a photographer/cinematographer. If you have the best camera in the world you're not going to make good videos if you don't know what to do with it or how to manipulate your environment to get the best shots. You can talk lenses and camera bodies all day (and this is the place to do it) but that's not going to solve your problem.

I have the GX7, but not the G6 so I can't compare IQ, but I like the small size (and design) of the GX7. If you want smaller, that's a better bet. Yes, the EVF is poor, but useable. Weird that the electronic view finder such a POS though. The sensor in the GX7 is said to be the same as the new 4K GH4 but doesn't have the same internal processing bandwidth --so it doesn't allow for 4K...however, I do hope one day that capability is somehow unleashed/hacked. I suppose that's a false hope, but one can dream. My GX7 is the N.American version so it does 24p, 30p, 60p1080, 60p720, 60i.

"Narrative" in music videos tends to be lyrical metaphor, for good reason. Symbolism often takes priority over structured narrative, but lots of videos are also straight forward storytelling with a song as soundtrack. Unless the band is telling you to do your own thing, I'd suggest collaborating... If they're somewhat creative and not compete hacks. If they're clueless, just do your own thing and make it yours.

Ha. You had to deal with teenagers. Fun, isn't it?

That's probably a better phrase than "pixel peeking" to be honest.

As I'm doing, get ready to invest in a lot of hard drive storage. If you want to archive all your raw footage for the "future" you'll need it. Of course, you could cut footage with an editor like Premiere or FCP and then just save the bits that make it into your edits. I'm not going to get into the hardships that are involved with re-encoding 4k footage for editing purposes. That's a whole enchilada unto itself. It'll be a bit complicated at first to discern the best workflow. Probably not extremely difficult either, but it'll require some jumping through of hoops. Not exactly the prevue of novices, but if you're willing to hop in, go for it! Personally, I'm foreseeing archiving my raw media under a very regimented and strict labeling system and then editing footage using low-res (1080p) proxy files. When the editing is done I'll rebuild/reconnect the footage at the the actual 4K resolution. Media management will be key. But I'm with you...still curious as to the most efficient way to edit 4K without buying too much hardware.

Exactly. It's not that the newer resolution technology is getting in the way of creating stills, the style between the disciplines is the bigger issue. Personally, I foresee "still-lifting" as a supplemental tool. Useful when appropriate. The way I shoot documentary montage sequences doesn't lend itself to great photos, but the way I film certainly works in the editing booth. I also agree that someone will create a hybrid style that does do both at the same time and will do it very well. It'll happen sooner rather than later.

I'll disagree with that. I shoot 60p/120ss a lot. Okay fine. But it's a home video. It's amateur, so what? If a dad has the ability to shoot simultaneous video and still of his girl's game, I don't think having a cinematic motion blur aesthetic is high on his list of priorities; which is what I'm on about. What person wouldn't want to shoot both things simultaneously? Maybe an enthusiast concerned with getting an idealized photograph, but most others will utilize the high-resolution to their advantage and get stills they otherwise would not have captured. I'm still surprised over the dismissive reaction that this capability offers consumers. It's a cool new tool that offers interesting abilities. Yes, even for "pros."