fuzzynormal

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....

As an owner of the GX7, I'd be surprised if it was as bad as what I'm used to. It would really be unacceptable on a 4K camera. Heck, it's unacceptable on a 1080 camera.

I don't have a mustache I can wax nor do I live in Echo Park and visit NAB on trust fund money. Am I still allowed to buy the camera?

So, who here would rather watch a GH1 video in the hands of someone with talent --than a hack neophyte running around with a GH4? What's it all about, after all? (...I ask on a blog forum specifically about the latest and greatest gear...) Films like this easily challenge the wishful conception that great equipment make a great filmmaker. Thanks for the inspiration mojo.

Not many seem to appreciate M43 photos. Steve Huff is about the only one making a mark evangelizing for M43 as a photo format. Personally, I like it. It doesn't feel limiting to me.

I'm typically a "smaller is better" sort of guy. As such, I've found the GX7 and GM1 to be a very capable motion picture cameras. Similar to what you're looking for, they're also a stop-gap video camera for me. I also bought 'em to use as my go-to stills cameras once the video needs are overtaken by the next camera buy. I think they're great stills cameras. Also, the GM1 works well as a "fly" video cam and I expect it'll specialize in that capacity for a long stretch.

Like it or not, they do have to make money selling their stuff. As a business decision, it makes sense. Lots of rinky-dink "TV studios" around the world would appreciate a decent low-cost camera(s). For example: if you're reading this from Europe, you might be surprised how many American religious organizations build small/big studios to proselytize their opinions. It's a good market to sell to. On the other hand, even if the indy film market does't offer great profit potential, they have product in that sector. They have to maintain, and even lead, in that arena if they want the "Black Magic" brand to mean anything. Since all lines are blurred between various production disciplines these days, they'll take a big hit with their reputation if they fail in any of them. I do wonder if they're too small to suffer that sort of collapse.

Yes. Although I do tend to use nice and small m43 prime lenses most of the time. Still, occasionally, having a zoom is productive. Depends on the shoot.

Well, ultimately, it's always been that. But getting through the production door and into the VIP room where the dude named "really-good-technical-imaging" hangs out is getting a lot easier.

If you want more DR this should tickle your jewels: As a documentarian that's actually done that sort of shot on numerous occasions, seeing a camera make it work so well is quite encouraging. I'm partial to keeping things small when on the road, so the self-contained ability of the GH4 appeals to me. It's ultimately about the image though... Looks like a really good/busy year for serious imaging development.

The big lens/smallcam set-up either looks incredibly silly or kind of goofy-cool. I can't make up my mind which. Either way, images look good from it.

Yeah, but the beats getting dropped were dope.

Hey Sony. You're sweet and all. I just think we're in different places right now. I know you'll meet someone that'll love you for who you are, (*cough* high maintenance *cough*) but I need a more down to earth camera to hang out with and accepts me for who am am and what I want. I just need simple and easy 4K, you know? Don't worry though, lots of fish in the sea. Call me again sometime.