fuzzynormal

For what it's worth, this is one punk that's more than willing to stay away from a toxic work environment.

By doing the same thing, but different. And then we all get to read various internet postings from fan boys. They'll assert that because they made a decision to spend their money on Canon, it's so much better than Sony. And Panasonic? Forget about it, just because they were first, doesn't mean they're the best and so on and so on. It's just that this time the phrase 4K will be used a whole lot more. It's silly, but that's all part of what helps sells these things.

Neat-o. As I say, great time to be in the imaging game.

I get what you're talking about, but I will disagree a bit as I do think video is already there. And I LOVE low-end DSLR equipment and really don't think it sucks at all. It's not even as good as it's going to get, but it's very valid for "pro" work. I've been paid a lot over the past few years shooting on an old 5DII and a few primes from the 1980's. My last personal DSLR film projected on huge festival theatre screens @1080 and it looked awesome. Was it the film with the most resolution? Maybe, maybe not...but unless you really tried, you couldn't tell. Here's a for instance: I recently snagged my GM1 for $600 and sold the kit lens for $300. I can put a used $100 Nikkor 24mm lens on the thing and get pro level images. Easily. $400 bucks, a great film idea, and some disciplined talent that's pretty much all you need now. You can get it done. I could get a used 5DII for about $700. A used Rebel for less than $400, etc. If you know what you're doing with that gear you can do pro level stuff without any trouble. That's my personal testimony anyway.

Considering Panasonic has about zero retail visibility here, I'd be surprised. I'd like to see it, but certainly don't expect it.

Sure. Would you do that for a wedding shoot though?

I've shot with the Rebels. The new GM1 and GX7 is superior in low light. When you add a speedbooster adapter it's even better. You'll also match the sensor size with the boost, so you'd be good to go. That said, I don't think I'd run around with a GM1 for a wedding video. It's not difficult to use, just quirkier, but the GX7 lends itself better to run'ngun. I also like the 60p option on the GX7 as I slow-mo conform that footage into 24fps. I do like the GX7 ergo's. I have a set of MFT primes and they're nice compact lenses, but I find that I like shooting the GX7 with my old Nikkor manual lenses more. A nice heft and balance; plus the iris ring and physical focusing...I'm an old dog I guess. It's not too hard to pull focus with peaking and the EVF.

I'd love 5 axis stabilization too, but I'm not going to be picky. It is what it is and that's plenty good enough all things considered.

Looks to be a great camera and a bigger step forward in the market than what any of the other guys are doing, so let's give Panasonic some welcome accolades. This'll only help keep things evolving in a positive way. Awesome time to be a film maker 'kuz it can be done so well for so cheap; really nothing technologically substantial getting in the way between ideas and fruition.

Is it? I'm new here so I dunno. I'm a craftsman anyway, for whatever that's worth...

Funny. That argument is the exact reasoning why I tend to believe content is indeed king. When everyone finally has it within their means to hold the ultimate paint brush in their hands, what are they going to paint with it? Sure they'll be inspired. I am. I was. Like you, I've gone out and made personal films that would never have of existed before without the ease of digital imaging. That's simply because the industry finally made tools that are cheap enough and high quality enough to be within my reach; wouldn't have done it otherwise. Would I have shot my last music video if I had to spend $3K just to purchase film stock, get it processed, and then edit it on a Moviola? Of course not. The floodgates of content are opening because these great cameras and editing gear are getting into the hands of people like you, Andrew Reid. The imaging industry is becoming democratized. I think it's great. I also think that since it's becoming so easy to acquire gear that allows one to capture wonderful high-definition motion pictures, what you create with those wonderful high-definition pictures is the only thing that's going to matter. Is that not a fair analysis? Am I misinterpreting your sentiment?

The short answer: they're Japanese and they're making still cameras. You gotta appreciate the context/culture even if it's frustrating to do so, but that's the best I can offer as for a reason. There's a lot of things you and I want, but they just don't consider or care about... yet.

I don't think so. The resolutions will look impressive, but that's about it. We've all seen terrible indie/studio/youtube films. They're not going to suddenly be magically more interesting just because there's more pixels and dynamic range to look at while the bad acting and direction is happening.

Yes and no. There's no denying that the industry is making better and better imaging tech. It's not a question of if consumers will have ridiculous imaging power, but when. Within a decade or so low-end consumers are going to have access to awesome resolution and dynamic range at their disposal. And "disposal" is a good word to apply here. When something becomes ubiquitous and a commodity, that perceived value diminishes. So, when digital imaging reaches the resolutions and dynamic range that exceed human sight...and everyone can get it cheaply, then what?

Actually, the stabilization is better for stills. Of course, it's awesome for video, but it really increases your ability to get great shots while taking photos. After all, that's why they put it in their cameras. I can't stress it enough. You should try it for at least a few minutes to see how cool it is. I put Oly's 75mm on the EM-5 and was getting rock solid/sharp hand held photos in low light. Why does it help with stills? Well, if you're on a longer focal length, say a 150mm full frame equivalent, the photo rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be double that full-frame number to compensate for motion blur created by the shakiness of a handheld camera. So, without good stabilization I would normally shoot a m43-75mm lens at a shutter of 300! Yikes, that sucks up a lot of light. And don't forget, longer lenses are more flattering for portraits, which is what you'll want to be doing. Thus, with Oly's superior stabilization (and it's really really really superior) you can lower that shutter speed to 50, 30, 20 even...on a long lens! All of a sudden you're shooting with available light, the ISO's aren't high/grainy, you get great naturalistic photos, the images stay sharp, all that good stuff. No one's more surprised at how evangelical I am about these cameras, especially considering I just bought a GM1 and GX7, but if a camera has a killer feature that's superior to everything else on the market, and it fits perfectly for your situation, it deserves to be touted.

Yes, but only insomuch as at a certain point (I happen to think we're effectively there already) image quality will be so good and so cheap that there's no real barriers to acquiring tools that are close to on par with what professionals use. Make no mistake, pros will always have the better stuff, but that margin will be indistinguishable to all but the most discriminating. But sure, in the consumer market it looks like Panasonic is just out front a bit right now. But you know how it goes, there's always something that's coming out that's juuust a little better. And a lot of people will covet whatever it is, just because it is. There's still a legacy of the old attitude: I now have Widget "A," so I'm an notable maker of "A's." I liken it to a dude I know that buys Leica's and considers himself an accomplished photographer, even though his photos are just glorified snapshots. He has at least 20K invested in his kit --yet anyone with a good eye and a disposable camera could easily outshoot him. Anyway, the whole change is cool though. A generation ago, you could be a "filmmaker" just because you happened to acquire a film camera. That was enough to legitimize you in some way, regardless of actual film making skill. Now, my nephew can easily buy a camera/lens from WalMart that makes better images than what Hitchcock used. So then, what makes a filmmaker these days?

For home movies (sometimes even professional ones) I think this 3 or 5-axis stabilization feature is far more beneficial than superior resolution. You should go try one in a camera store to really get a sense how powerful this ability is for your movies. Stable handheld shots without much effort? That's incredible. And your viewers will thank you as well.

For what it's worth, one of my favorite films is "Man With A Movie Camera," and that film has so much visual magic in it, most modern filmmakers still can't equal the creativity they managed.

Agreed. I shot one of my last films deliberately 24p, FF, a single 50mm lens, and always @f1.4 whether day or night. Those were the considered parameters I decided to use for my own exaggerated aesthetic reasons. I felt that particular visual look supported the narrative, so I utilized it. The issue I'm driving at stems more from the assumption I've seen that without 24p one's work could be dismissed as not "pro" --whatever that means. Obviously, based on my posts, I tend to believe that so many other considerations are more important. In the case of the Oly, the 5-axis feature is so incredible it makes that camera a viable choice for productive shooting. The lack of 24p is too bad, but more than a worthwhile concession. BTW, I shoot my corporate gigs @30p almost all the time.

Granted. "Story" is my current perspective and maybe I'm convoluting the semantics here. Ironically, my last film was almost wholly impressionistic.

He just means that if you're going to add an effect that introduces a lot of activity to your image (like film grain) in post-production, you need to convert your video to a codec that can handle all that "new" motion information. A codec like H.264 can't compensate for all that new visual activity, because the data rate is too minimal, so it "crushes" those details and makes them mushy. Thus, he changes his format from from the camera, H.264, to ProRes444 and then edits with that converted footage. Essentially ProRes444 is a big wide pipe and data flows through it easily. H.264 is a thin garden hose and can only handle so much data before it starts to fail under pressure.

Of course I have. Just because it's something that exists and can be done well doesn't mean everyone should be giving it a go without informed consideration, however. I shoot my own films with zoom moves every once in a while. It's a good visual tool. However, knowing how to utilize a zoom move as a pro and having a neophyte go at it tend to be two wildly different things. Let's just say it's part of cinematic vocabulary, but the zoom move would be a word in that dictionary with a whole lot of syllables. You better have a strong grasp of the language before you start dropping it into conversation.

Well, for starters, you can't really escape "I don't like this or that" on the web. And, yes, technical seems to be the focus here of a lot of people for logical reasons. However, this blog is called "EOSHD, Directed by DSLR Filmmakers." So, if one filmmaker suggest to another filmmaker that they might be making an bad assumption about motion picture imaging, and that they would be better off not worrying about their perceived problem and consider another style of shooting, seems like that would be productive a little bit. Even if they agree or disagree. That's up to them, but it's a viewpoint they might not have even considered otherwise. Believe it or not, (this is the internet after all) I'm not trying to win an argument about how to do things, my suggestions and opinions are just there to offer a personal perspective. If you think zoom moves in motion pictures are better than sex and chocolate, and the coolest thing you could do with a lens while having sex with chocolate, then that's up to you. I could have easily said to the OP, just buy a constant aperture lens to do your zoom moves. That would solve a technical problem, but IMHO the artistic short comings are still there.

Indeed, what tends to get overlooked by tech heads is the fact that content trumps all else. If you're constantly getting caught up in the notion that you can't effectively tell a story because an imaging device does't shoot at an certain frame rate, it has less resolution than some other camera, or maybe it's missing a few extra steps of dynamic range, I'd wonder if you're the type that'll ever be an effective filmmaker. Having all those premium features help make a story look better, but that's not going to help you TELL the story at a fundamental level. (in fact, there's a strong argument to be made that technical obstructions foster creativity rather than hinder it.) Are you consistently worried more about image quality than narrative? You're probably a technician, not a storyteller. And here in the lower-end marketplace of filmmaking with all this democratized gear, the latter really tends to matter a whole lot more. These cameras are just tools, they're not the craft.

Yeah, I'll confirm, all Canon cams I've worked with skew 'red.' But really, if you shoot vanilla and tweak colors in post, that issue takes care of itself. I've cross cut with many different brands before. Recently did a doc with Canon DSLR, Canon HDV, Nikon DSLR, and a GH1, was able to unify stuff in post without too much trouble; just gotta start as bland and flat as possible when acquiring your footage.