fuzzynormal

Why would you shoot a shot with a zoom move anyway? Are you trying to make a 1970's movie? In that case, just buy a nice old vivitar manual zoom and an adapter. Seriously, zooms (edit: the zoom 'move' not the lens itself) are horrible.

Not bad. I'm not partial to shooting with a shoulder rig myself, but if you find it helps, no problem. Using that LED light though? I'd ditch it. IMHO, that's not going to do you any favors with creating an attractive image. I'd say, at the most, use it as a rim light on subjects. Have a assistant hit 'em from the side or behind if need be, but direct like that? Nah, not a good thing. No assistant? Roll with natural light and then find your angles that compliment your subject. This is a much better approach to documentary style film making. Modern cams are great in low light. Keep it naturalistic and try harder to find your shots rather than just illuminating the first thing you see. Is that the Oly45mm on there? If so, that's a great focal length (90mm Full Frame Equivalent) for portraiture and will look awesome...but not handheld --unless you're some sort of zen master shooter. You'll need a tripod or at least a good monopod. If you can handle it, I'd recommend shooting the whole thing longer lens @2.8/fps50/and a shutter speed of 100. (adjust exposure with ISO and/or ND filters) It would make your work look much more elegant and cohesive. But again, only if you can effectively control the lens movement on that longer focal length. Easier said than done. More practically, shooting @50mm (FF equivalent) would still look nice and give you a bit more flexibility with space. Personally, I'm not a fan of wide angles with documentaries. Useful for a few special shots, depending on the subject, but I stay away from them if I can. I like to pick one prime and shoot at least 80% of my footage with it. Good luck!

For making truly "Cinema-Like" images? I don't think it really matters. Having the skill to make those "Cinema-Like" images does. Once you can utilize that skill effectively, then you can use that wisdom to make smart choices. You can't just walk outside and randomly point a camera with an old lens on it and have the lens create cinema magic. There's just way too much more involved with it than that. That being said, yes, all lenses have different characteristics. Knowing which ones to use in order to support the narrative is the key. I've shot an entire film with a cheap uncoated 50mm lens from the 60's because the flawed visuals it created supported that particular story. or...at least that's how I rationalized it. ;-)

Rarified air you're breathing. How's it smell?

Was that about cameras? Must've missed it.

That's lens flare. You can only solve that "problem" by flagging the lens so lights aren't directly shining on the glass. Or, just not shooting into lights. Also, the next time you direct a movie in the Star Trek franchise you can do that on purpose with Zeiss lenses and everyone will think it's awesome and want to emulate it.

For what it's worth, if you're shooting a f2 on m43, you have an effective DOF of f4 in regards to full frame cameras. Considering that feature film cinematographers like to shoot around f5.6, I'd say that m43 sensors work well getting that shallow/skinny DOF look. Something like a f1.4 on a full frame is useful for specialty shots, but shooting motion pictures that way all the time would be a bit much. Anyway, I'm just saying m43 does good motion picture DOF.

Probably a simple photo CGI composite mix with the "practical" shot.

Awesome. Thanks for this. I shot at this temple 5 years ago in HD and it doesn't look half as good as your footage. Very encouraging.

Content and technique are more important on high-end professional shoots as well. Creatives are the ones that control the production. The tech side makes sure they maintain impressive standards, but content is king; at least with storytelling.

That right there is why, for some people, the Olympus will always be a better camera overall. I don't care if it's not as sharp as a GH3 or my GX7. It's a camera that's perfect for some shooting situations. --And if it's solving a problem or helping you be more creative, resolution is hardly a priority. I'll put it this way: The best imaging machine isn't always the best camera.

240 isn't good enough for you?

A new camera owner is shooting video on the default settings. So it's a bit soft to start with. Big deal. If you know what you're doing you can make images from this camera look fine. Besides, all this worry about what sensor tech is best is ridiculous. These days it's all pretty dang impressive. If you want to shoot motion pictures to tell a story I doubt having a sensor with 5% less resolution than a competitor's camera is going to matter all that much. Either you can shoot and edit or you can't. Extra pixels are nice, but they're not going to give someone film making skills.

Here's a simple phrase that should help: "Chase Mini Van" Open the doors and pace the riders.

You got it. Even for a "pro" like myself I can see how this little cam is worth the other tech shortcomings, just 'kuz the killer feature it has is truly that. I was playing with one today, shooting rock solid hand held... with a prime @150mm. Now c'mon, that's some serious production value. it's not ALL about the pixel math.

C'mon, everyone. The original post is a joke. Even if the person that posted the question was serious. Heck, especially if the person that posted the question was serious.

If you 100% want to shoot 4K, then, for you, gear that doesn't shoot 4k is indeed obsolete.

I think so. Totally depends on you visual tastes. I like the "standard" focal range 50mm - 100mm, but for climbing I can see how something wide would be nice. Handheld you're probably not going to want to zoom in too much anyway, right? With the kit lens you get an full frame equivalent 24mm to 64mm. Good workhorse sort of range there. And since you're shooting in daylight, you need not worry about having a fast lens. I suppose if you want something low-light for evenings around the fire, taking along a fast pancake prime would help. Otherwise, just roll with the GM1's kit lens. Oh, I'd suggest putting a .9 ND and polarizer on the lens too. It'll help keep your shutter speed reasonable on bright sunny days.

The kit zoom is sharp and pretty good. I just like to shoot on primes with shallow DOF and more on the telephoto side of things. If that doesn't matter to you, you'll find that the compact zoom is perfectly adequate.

Yup...As well as frame rate. M43 sensors with a f2.8 and 24p is going to emulate a "cinematic" look. It just will. MKII with f16 and 60p will look "video." It just will. Gotta know what you're doing and why things do what they do to get the images required.

Cool. Glad you like the Olympus. It's intriguing and thanks for the breakdown. I'll probably wait until it offers 24p/60p, but I see it's value and covet it's capabilities...just need a few more tweaks. However, I can consider shooting 30p and conforming to 24 for one of my current projects. The rock solid handheld is tempting.

That has something to do with it. I do like my Nikon lenses. On the other hand, I've met amateurs and enthusiasts that lean on the notion that the better the gear the better they'll be at their endeavors. It's an interesting American trait; not sure if it prevalent in other 1st world countries...? For instance, you can't just ride a friggin' bicycle here, for many people they have to have equipment on par with the Italian team that competes in the Tour de France. I'm not exaggerating. Just peddling a regular bike for a few miles for neighborhood commutes in everyday clothes does't seem to be an option. You want to go out for a hike? Well, you better outfit your feet with $700 boots for that weekend jaunt of 3 miles. Stuff like that. I worry sometimes that there's a culture of over indulging in acquiring things in order to just do simple things. Same goes with photo gear. An acquaintance of mine bought a Hasselblad and 4 prime lenses; cost more than his house. Such are the priorities for some. He took pictures of the mountains of Wyoming with it. That was about it. Pix were't anything special either. Anyway, everyone has different motivations, some just seem odd to me. Arguably, it could be the psychology of just presenting an idealized image of oneself to one's peers? Thus, bigger equals better? Perception equals reality? American's have a culture that's marketed to and advertised to relentlessly. We're told that without item "A" we are less than those that have "A". Without "A" we can't be happy. Do we all accept those marketing ideals on a subconscious level? Could it be as simple as insecurity? Without the bigger things we don't feel accomplished? The USA is definitely a "Big" nation, I do know that. Yet here I am making a documentary on a Lumix GM1...exceptions, rules, and all that I suppose.

The codecs are developed independent of the sensor hardware. A company could build a 4K sensor that only used 10 steps of dynamic range. Another company could build 4K sensor that shot 20 steps. They could both use the same codec for their video. How they implement that codec in their hardware is the thing. In the meantime, the codec must be licensed with hardware manufacturers and software developers paying a fee.

Correct guess.

While true, I welcome this particular technology push as a marketing tool. I also believe they're doing this for the simple reason that making sensors with more pixels is a ton easier than making a sensor with better dynamic range. Simply: It's cheaper and gives them some marketing clout. Like the "megapixel" wars, the numbers will matter less as it all equalizes across competition. When that happens IQ will have its day. Especially as pro and enthusiast photographers start using video as a means of non-stop stills shooting. Those customers are demanding and IQ matters. They're not going to settle for 4K if the IQ is inferior. It's all moving forward and I'm cool with that.